Kenya Building Construction /Timber and Furniture Industries Employees Union v Raiply Woods (K) & another [2021] KEELRC 2318 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to stop Raiply Wood's redundancies, ruling that a union's failure-to-notify complaint can be fully resolved at trial, not by urgent injunction.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the initial redundancy of about 300 employees complied with Section 40 of the Employment Act
It did, insofar as reasons and extent of the redundancy were concerned, since the union was notified by letter dated 11th June 2018
Section 40(1)(a) requires notification of the union and the local Labour Officer of the reasons for and extent of the intended redundancy not less than one month before termination. The respondent's letter of 11th June 2018 informed the Claimant of the moratorium on logging, the financial constraints, and that the redundancy would affect around 300 employees across all departments, thereby satisfying the statutory requirements on reasons and extent.
Whether the subsequent redundancies affecting a further 928 employees were properly notified
No evidence was placed before the court showing the Claimant and local Labour Officer were notified of the extent of the subsequent redundancies
The court acknowledged the extension of the logging moratorium on 21st November 2019 occasioned the subsequent redundancies, but held that no material was placed before it showing notification of the extent of those redundancies to the Claimant and the Labour Officer as required by Section 40. However, this omission did not justify interlocutory relief since it was attributable to government policy, with the legality and consequences left for trial.
Whether a prima facie case was demonstrated for an interlocutory injunction
No prima facie case warranting interlocutory relief was demonstrated
The applicant alleged the terminations were disguised redundancy coupled with outsourcing of cheap labour in breach of the CBA and Section 40. The court found the initial redundancy compliant and the omission on subsequent notification compensable at trial; thus the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case warranting the grant of an interlocutory injunction.
Legal principles established
#- Non-compliance with notification requirements under Section 40 of the Employment Act as to extent of subsequent redundancies does not by itself justify an interlocutory injunction where the redundancy was occasioned by government policy; the remedy lies at trial
Court orders
#- 1.The Court will not grant any interlocutory relief and hereby directs that the suit proceeds to full trial
- 2.It is so ordered
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance interlocutory jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court under the Employment Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Building Construction /Timber and Furniture Industries Employees Union v Raiply Woods (K) & another [2021] KEELRC 2318 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Motion dated 27th January 2020 (ELRC, Eldoret). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/2318/eng@2021-01-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.