Kenya Export Floriculture and Horticulture and Allied Workers Union v Vegpro (K) Limited [2021] KEELRC 1733 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court ordered Gorge Farm to disclose employment records for 970 dismissed workers while the union's unfair dismissal case proceeds to full hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Sub judice / res judicata objection
Preliminary objection not merited
The respondent contended the suit duplicated Nairobi ELRC No. 378 of 2019 contrary to Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court held there was no order stopping it from proceeding and, critically, the pleadings of the Nairobi suit were not availed to enable a comparison. Without that material the court could not assess similarity, so the objection failed and was dismissed.
Recusal for apprehended bias
Recusal not granted; the court proceeded with the application
The respondent alleged the court would be biased because it had handled ELRC No. 378 of 2019 and made adverse findings in a contempt application. The claimant argued no specific conduct was identified to meet the reasonable apprehension test. The court did not recuse itself and proceeded to determine the interlocutory application on its merits.
Interim orders under Giella v Cassman Brown
Prayers 1 and 2 granted; disclosure of employment records and certification as urgent
Applying the interlocutory injunction principles, the court found prayers 1 and 2 tenable because they would give the court a clearer picture of the issues, including the contested claim of unfair dismissal of 970 employees. The mandatory-type injunctions (prayers 3 and 4) were not granted at this stage. The orders issued run pending the hearing and determination of the claim.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection on sub judice cannot be sustained where the pleadings of the previously instituted suit have not been placed before the court to assess similarity
Court orders
#- 1.The application certified as urgent and heard ex parte with service dispensed with in the first instance
- 2.An interim order directing the respondent to file in court all employment records in respect of the 970 employees listed as grievants, pending the hearing and determination of the claim
- 3.Costs in the cause
- 4.The respondent's preliminary objection dismissed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Labour Relations Act (employment dispute); Article 162(2)(a) jurisdiction implied
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Export Floriculture and Horticulture and Allied Workers Union v Vegpro (K) Limited [2021] KEELRC 1733 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Claimant's Notice of Motion dated 16th December 2020 (ELRC at Naivasha). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1733/eng@2021-05-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.