Sukari Industries Ltd & 3 others v Ongoro & 3 others (Cause E067 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 96 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer lost its bid to stop an alleged strike because it couldn't provide solid evidence proving who did what.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case warranting an interlocutory injunction over the alleged illegal strike of 19th August 2024
The application failed for want of proof; the applicant's depositions were generalized, lacked particularity and were not evidentiary demonstrable, while the respondents' account was more detailed and credible.
The applicant's supporting affidavit did not state the deponent was present or briefed, lacked essential details on the alleged strike, offered no evidence of loss or police/labour office reports, and did not demonstrate each respondent's role. The respondents' evidence of a brief go-slow ending by 11:00am was uncontroverted. Prior grievances under a February 2024 return-to-work formula lent context. The burden of proof under Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act was not discharged.
Standard and burden of proof in civil applications
The burden lay on the applicant to prove the strike and the respondents' instigation of it on a balance of probabilities; formal proof is required even where a claim is uncontroverted.
The court applied Sections 107(1), 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act and authority including the Supreme Court's decision in the Raila Odinga case, holding that the standard of proof in civil cases is on a balance of probabilities and that a court must examine the evidence and dismiss a claim that falls short of that standard.
Legal principles established
#- He who alleges must prove; the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the facts, and allegations must be established on a balance of probabilities even where uncontroverted.
- The principles for the grant of an interlocutory injunction are a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicants' Notice of Motion dated 19th August, 2024 is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 12(3)(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Section 77 of the Labour Relations Act; Sections 76, 77, 78 and 80 of the Labour Relations Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sukari Industries Ltd & 3 others v Ongoro & 3 others (Cause E067 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 96 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 19th August, 2024 (Employment and Labour Relations Court, Kisumu). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/96/eng@2025-01-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.