Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedApplication dated 26/1/2021 (Cause number not stated in the judgment)· [2021] KEELRC 605 (KLR)

Kenya Concrete, Structural, Ceramics,Tiles Woodplys and Interior Design Workers Union v Intex Construction Limited; Kenya Building Construction Timber and Furniture Employees Union (Interested Party) [2021] KEELRC 605 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
28 October 2021
MNMathews N. Nduma
647 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment and Labour Relations Court allowed a construction workers' union to join an ongoing case because its stake in the workers was too significant to be left unheard.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an interlocutory application dated 26 January 2021 in which the Kenya Building, Construction, Timber and Furniture Products Employees Union sought to be enjoined in a cause before the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi as an interested party. The applicant union, through its General Secretary Mr. Francis Murage, asserted that the respondent, Intex Construction Limited, was a member of the Roads and Civil Engineering Constructions Association (RACECA), which had a long-standing relationship with the applicant and had negotiated several Collective Bargaining Agreements with it, and that the workers purportedly recruited by the claimant union were members of the applicant, which received their dues. The claimant union, through the replying affidavit of Dishon Angoya, opposed the joinder, invoking Articles 36(2) and 41 of the Constitution on freedom of association and the right to join a union of choice, contending that the employees had joined the claimant union to the exclusion of the applicant. Mathews N. Nduma, Judge, framed a single issue: whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements for joinder as an interested party. Applying the Supreme Court's criteria in Francis K. Muruatetu v Republic & 5 Others [2016] eKLR, the Court found that the applicant had demonstrated a substantial interest in the subject matter, prejudice not remediable by costs or damages, absence of inordinate delay, and that joinder was in the interest of justice. The application was granted, with directions on the filing of pleadings by the interested party to be given on the date of the ruling. No costs order was recorded.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant union satisfied the Muruatetu criteria for joinder as an interested party

Holding

The application for joinder was granted; the applicant demonstrated a substantial interest in the subject matter, non-remediable prejudice, absence of inordinate delay, and it was in the interest of justice that it be heard before determination.

Reasoning

The Court applied the four Muruatetu conditions: setting out the personal interest or stake; that the interest be identifiable and proximate rather than peripheral; that prejudice from non-joinder be demonstrated and not remote; and that the applicant set out the distinct case and submissions it intends to make, not a mere replication of other parties' submissions. The applicant union's relationship with the respondent via RACECA, its negotiated CBAs and its receipt of union dues from the workers in question established a proximate stake warranting joinder.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An intended interested party must demonstrate a personal stake in the matter, identifiability and proximity of that interest, prejudice in case of non-joinder, and the distinct submissions it intends to make, per the Muruatetu criteria.
  • An interested party whose interest is substantial and who stands to suffer prejudice not remediable by costs or damages ought to be heard before determination of the suit.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 26/1/2021 is granted and the Kenya Building, Construction, Timber and Furniture Products Employees Union is enjoined in the suit as an interested party
  2. 2.Directions as to the filing of pleadings by the interested party to be given on the date of the ruling

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 36(2)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 41

Cases cited (1)

  • Francis K. Muruatetu and Another –vs- Republic and 5 Others
    [2016] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court; joinder of interested party pursuant to the criteria in Francis K. Muruatetu & Another v Republic & 5 Others [2016] eKLR

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Concrete, Structural, Ceramics,Tiles Woodplys and Interior Design Workers Union v Intex Construction Limited; Kenya Building Construction Timber and Furniture Employees Union (Interested Party) [2021] KEELRC 605 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Application dated 26/1/2021 (Cause number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/605/eng@2021-10-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.