Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Premier Flour Mills [2022] KEELRC 709 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court

18 February 2022

MOMaureen Onyango

1,449 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

A Kenyan court ordered Uzima Chicken Ltd to pay 57 workers over KSh 22.6 million in withheld wages, with interest, after the company failed to defend the case.

What this practically means

Executive summary

The Claimant, a trade union registered under the Labour Relations Act, sued on behalf of 57 grievants employed by the Respondent, a flour milling company. The parties had a recognition agreement and a collective bargaining agreement that expired on 31st December 2016. The Claimant alleged the Respondent unilaterally stopped paying the grievants' salaries from February 2018 without terminating their employment or declaring them redundant. After failed internal meetings, the dispute was reported to the Cabinet Secretary under Section 62 of the Labour Relations Act; conciliation failed and the conciliator, invoking Section 69, referred the matter to the Court. The Claimant filed suit on 25th April 2019 seeking payment of all withheld wages from February 2018, statutory deductions under Section 19(f) of the Employment Act, a declaration that the employment contracts remained binding, and costs. The Respondent was properly served, entered appearance, but filed no defence, submissions, and did not attend court, so the suit proceeded undefended and was disposed of by pleadings, witness affidavits and written submissions. The court framed one issue: whether the Claimant was entitled to the orders sought. Relying on Article 41 of the Constitution and Section 17(1) of the Employment Act, and the uncontroverted evidence that the grievants reported to work until October 2019 while the Respondent promised to settle arrears, the court entered judgment for the grievants in the sum of Kshs.22,666,420/- as tabulated in the Claimant's computation sheet, with interest from the date of judgment. Judgment was delivered virtually at Nairobi on 18th February 2022.

Key legal issues

Whether the Respondent was liable to pay withheld wages to the 57 grievants from February 2018 to October 2019

Holding

Yes. The suit was undefended; the Respondent did not deny owing the wages, employees reported to work until October 2019, and the Respondent kept promising to pay. Judgment was entered for the tabulated sum of Kshs.22,666,420/- with interest from the date of judgment.

Reasoning

The court noted the averments were uncontroverted: the Respondent entered appearance but filed no defence or submissions. It found the failure to pay salaries from February 2018 breached Article 41 of the Constitution and Section 17(1) of the Employment Act, amounting to an unfair labour practice. Since the tabulation of arrears was served without objection, the court adopted the claimed figure of Kshs.22,666,420/- and awarded interest.

p. 3

Whether the employment contracts between the Respondent and the grievants remained binding and were never validly terminated

Holding

The court proceeded on the uncontroverted position that the Respondent had neither terminated employment nor declared the grievants redundant despite closing the company in December 2018.

Reasoning

The Respondent told the conciliator it had closed the company in December 2018 but confirmed it had neither terminated the grievants nor declared them redundant, and the grievants continued reporting to work until October 2019 when a new security firm denied them entry. With no defence filed, these facts stood unchallenged, supporting the claim that the contracts remained intact and enforceable.

p. 1

Legal principles established

Payment of wages is an employee's right and failure to pay wages amounts to an unfair labour practice and is unconstitutional
Failure to pay agreed wages goes to the root of the employment contract and entitles the employee to repudiate it

Court orders

1.Judgment entered for the Claimant on behalf of the grievants in the sum of Kshs.22,666,420/- as tabulated in the computation sheet filed with the submissions
2.The said amount shall attract interest from the date of judgment

Authorities

Legislation

Labour Relations ActSection 62
Labour Relations Act, 2007Section 69
Employment Act, 2007Section 17(1)
Employment Act, 2007Section 19(f)
Constitution of KenyaArticle 41(1) and (2)
Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)Section 1B
Companies ActNot specified

Cases cited (1)

Omollo Obuom v Catholic Diocese of Nakuru
[2015] eKLR

Jurisdiction invoked: Section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007 (reference of an unresolved trade dispute to the Court by the Conciliator)

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Premier Flour Mills [2022] KEELRC 709 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause No 271 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/709/eng@2022-02-18

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