Mbuthia & 45 others v Kenya National Farmers Federation [Sued Through Its Chairman, Nduati Kariuki, Secretary Professor Kaburu M’ribiru and Its Treasurer Grace Ngambi]; Kenfap Services Limited & another (Interested Parties) (Cause 1593 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 1437 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court threw out a Kshs. 134 million group claim because the lead claimant never got valid written authority from the workers he claimed to represent.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Authority to prosecute a representative claim under Rule 9 of the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2016
The Claim was unsustainable: the 1st Claimant appended his own initials (CMK/GMK) instead of the signatures of at least 20 claimants, and the authority irregularly merged a retainer agreement.
Rule 9(2) requires a letter of authority signed by all other parties on whose behalf the suit is instituted. The Court held that authority is manifested by signatures; initials by the lead claimant do not satisfy the rule. The rule guards against fictitious claims and protects innocent persons from being bound by litigation they know nothing of. The Court endorsed decisions equivalent to Order 1 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules and found the Claim an abuse of process.
Whether the substantive claims (salary arrears, unfair termination, service pay) required determination
The Court declined to determine the substantive issues, finding it unnecessary given the failure of authority.
Having found the Claim unsustainable on the threshold question of authority, the Court held it was not useful to examine whether the contracts were unfairly terminated or whether Kshs. 134,683,007 was owed. It also rejected the 1st Claimant's claim that dissenting claimants were coerced, finding such claimants had never given authority and were well-advised to disown the Claim.
Costs liability where a claim is presented without authority of all named claimants
Only the 1st Claimant who filed, swore the verifying affidavit, gave evidence and prosecuted the Claim was ordered to pay costs, not the claimants who had not authorized the suit.
Relying on its decision in Charles Kimani Waweru & 226 Others v. The Kenya Kazi Services Limited, the Court held that a lead claimant who prosecutes a claim without clear authority should personally meet the costs. Although two other claimants were named in the authority, they took no part in the proceedings, so the 1st Claimant assumed full responsibility.
Legal principles established
#- Under Rule 9(2) of the E&LRC Procedure Rules, 2016, a letter of authority must be signed by all persons on whose behalf a claim is brought; without signature there is no evidence of authority and the action taken is void.
- Presenting a claim without clear authority of the persons on whose behalf it is brought is an abuse of court process.
- A letter of authority under Rule 9 should not incorporate a retainer agreement between claimants and their advocates.
- A lead claimant who files and prosecutes a claim without clear authority bears the costs personally.
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim is declined.
- 2.Costs to the Respondent and the Interested Parties, to be paid by the 1st Claimant, Charles Mbuthia.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court [Procedure] Rules, 2016, Rule 9
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mbuthia & 45 others v Kenya National Farmers Federation [Sued Through Its Chairman, Nduati Kariuki, Secretary Professor Kaburu M’ribiru and Its Treasurer Grace Ngambi]; Kenfap Services Limited & another (Interested Parties) (Cause 1593 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 1437 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELRC Cause (Nairobi), filed 7th December 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1437/eng@2024-06-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.