Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedELRC Cause No. 41 of 2006 (Notice of Motion dated 28th September 2023)· [2024] KEELRC 510 (KLR)

Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Rolmil Kenya Limited; Directors-Diamond hasham Lalji - (Director Rolmil (K) Ltd & another (Intended Interested Party) (Cause 41 of 2006) [2024] KEELRC 510 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
7 March 2024
BOByram Ongaya
1,841 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court refused to let 286 ex-employees join a completed wage case, stressing strict rule compliance and joinder only in ongoing proceedings.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The intended interested parties, 286 former employees of Rotmil Kenya Limited represented by Kabuthia Kamau & Associates Advocates, applied by notice of motion dated 28th September 2023 for leave to be enjoined as interested parties in Cause No. 41 of 2006, in which a decretal sum of Kshs. 363,065,128/= was awarded by a ruling of Onyango J dated 5th October 2022 following the award of 6th August 2008. They sought orders that the decretal sum be paid directly to them transparently, alleging that the advocates, the respondent and the union were frustrating and delaying payment. The claimant union opposed, contending that it had conducted the litigation on behalf of members under a recognition agreement and registered CBA, that directors were negotiating a consent, and that the application was an abuse of process. The respondent employer also opposed but filed no submissions. The Court, Ongaya J (Principal Judge), held the application incompetent for non-compliance with Rule 9 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules: only 59 persons signed the letter of authority, no schedule of the applicants' names and dues was filed, and only three deponents were identified. The Court further held that joinder of an interested party is permissible only in pending or on-going proceedings, whereas the only issue outstanding was satisfaction of the decree, which the claimant union had properly pursued, including the summoning of directors with liberty to apply for their committal to civil jail. The Court acknowledged the applicants may be valid beneficiaries of the award but dismissed the application with no orders on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competency of the application under Rule 9 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules

Holding

The application was incompetent because only 59 persons signed the authority and no schedule or evidence identifying the 286 intended interested parties was filed

Reasoning

The Court found that the intended interested parties were not identified except the three deponents; the authority was signed by only 59 persons and no evidence showed the rest were ex-employees. Rule 9 required a letter of authority signed by all applicants and a schedule of names, addresses, descriptions and particulars of dues claimed by each. Non-compliance rendered the application incompetent, with a real danger of undisclosed applicants and unknown benefits if granted.

p. 4
02

Whether joinder as interested party is available in proceedings where final orders have been made and only satisfaction of the decree remains

Holding

Joinder was not available because there was no pending or on-going proceeding in which the applicants could assist the Court

Reasoning

The final decree flowed from the Industrial Court award of 6th August 2008, in which the union sued for the benefit of its members. The only issue outstanding was satisfaction of the decree, and the record showed the claimant union had taken appropriate steps, including summoning the directors and obtaining liberty to seek their committal to civil jail. Since joinder of an interested party requires pending or on-going proceedings, and none existed, the applicants could not be enjoined.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Joinder of an interested party may be allowed only where there are pending or on-going proceedings for the party to assist the Court to determine
  • An application by multiple applicants must comply with Rule 9 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, including a letter of authority signed by all applicants and a schedule of names, addresses and particulars of each applicant's claim

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application filed for the proposed interested parties is dismissed with no orders on costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 (Rules 2 and 9)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Rolmil Kenya Limited; Directors-Diamond hasham Lalji - (Director Rolmil (K) Ltd & another (Intended Interested Party) (Cause 41 of 2006) [2024] KEELRC 510 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELRC Cause No. 41 of 2006 (Notice of Motion dated 28th September 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/510/eng@2024-03-07

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