Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedApplication dated 8th December, 2020 in ELRC Cause (memorandum of claim dated 15th May, 2018)· [2022] KEELRC 333 (KLR)

Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Ashut Engineers Limited (Plastic Division) [2022] KEELRC 333 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
10 March 2022
MMM. Mbaru
1,303 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court refused to force Mabati Rolling Mills to deposit Ksh.50 million, ruling that collective bargaining disputes must be decided at a full hearing, not on interim applications.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi, delivered by M. Mbaru, Judge, on 10th March 2022, determined an application dated 8th December, 2020 by the claimant union. The union sought, in the alternative, an order that the respondent deposit Ksh.50,000,000 plus 15% of redundancy benefits recommended in the Central Planning and Monitoring Unit (CPMU) report dated 21st September, 2020, as security for compensation that may be payable to its 801 members. The union argued the respondent had declared a redundancy affecting 801 employees in bad faith to avoid financial obligations, had declined to review the CBA effective 1st August, 2017, and had failed to produce audited financial statements. The respondent, through a replying affidavit of Amit Shah, opposed the application, contending the plastics business was not viable, the CPMU report failed to consider its audited accounts and questionnaire, and that the redundancy was the subject of a separate cause, ELRC Cause No.E013 of 2022. The court framed the matter around the underlying claim dated 15th May, 2018, in which the dispute was the refusal to review 12 clauses of the CBA. Holding that this was an economic dispute concerning CBA review, distinct from the redundancy issue, and that the CPMU report's contested recommendations could only be tested at a full hearing, the court dismissed the application. It directed that the suit proceed to a hearing on the merits, with costs to abide the outcome of the suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether security of Ksh.50 million could be ordered at an interlocutory stage

Holding

The application was dismissed; the deposit sought would pre-empt the trial determination of the economic dispute

Reasoning

The claim pegged the deposit on the CPMU report and a redundancy notice. The court found the dispute before it concerns CBA review, while redundancy is separately addressed under Cause No.E013 of 2022. Since the CPMU recommendations are contested and depend on audited financial statements and wage bill analysis, requiring a deposit would amount to deciding the matter before full hearing.

p. 2
02

Effect of the CPMU report dated 21st September, 2020

Holding

The report's recommendations are contested and must be interrogated at a full hearing with the audited accounts and wage bill

Reasoning

The court directed the CPMU to file a report, which recommended increments including house allowance, leave travelling allowance and general wage increases, resulting in arrears of about Ksh.50 million. The respondent contested the report for failing to consider its audited financial reports and questionnaire. The court held the report was meant only to aid the parties and is not binding.

03

Whether the redundancy dispute overlaps with the CBA review claim

Holding

The redundancy is a separate issue dealt with under Cause No.E013 of 2022 and does not support the deposit order in this cause

Reasoning

The claimant sought security because a redundancy affecting 801 members was declared. The court found the issue in dispute in this suit is refusal to review the CBA, unrelated to redundancy, which is addressed in a separate cause not disputed by the claimant. The deposit application therefore rested on matters outside this suit's dispute.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An economic dispute concerning CBA review and interim security deposits must be determined after a full hearing on the merits
  • A CPMU report is not binding on the court; it only aids the parties and its recommendations must be tested at trial

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application dated 8th December, 2020 is dismissed
  2. 2.The court shall hear the suit on the merits
  3. 3.Costs shall abide the outcome of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over the CBA review dispute (economic dispute) referred to it

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Ashut Engineers Limited (Plastic Division) [2022] KEELRC 333 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Application dated 8th December, 2020 in ELRC Cause (memorandum of claim dated 15th May, 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/333/eng@2022-03-10

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