Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment text· [2025] KEELRC 615 (KLR)

West Kenya Sugar Company Ltd & 3 others v Kenya Union of Sugar Plantation and Allied Worker (Cause E030 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 615 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 February 2025
DNDAVID NDERITU
2,444 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The respondent union moved the court by notice of motion dated 17th October, 2024 seeking to restrain the claimants from initiating or continuing disciplinary action against employees, union members and non-members on account of participation in the strike of 1st to 3rd October, 2024, pending determination of the claimants' own claim filed on 2nd October, 2024 seeking a declaration that the strike was illegal and unprotected. The union, through the affidavit of its General Secretary Francis Bushuru Wangara, deponed that the claimants had usurped the court's role by issuing show-cause and suspension letters premised on the strike's alleged illegality while that very issue was pending before the court, and contrary to the parties' CBA. The claimants, through Duncan Abwawo's affidavit and submissions, conceded commencing disciplinary action but argued the court should not interfere with an employer's internal disciplinary prerogative save in exceptional circumstances. The court framed one main issue: whether to halt the disciplinary processes. It held that the show-cause and suspension letters demonstrated the claimants had pre-judged the strike's illegality, the very question pending before the court at their own instance. Applying the principle that he who seeks equity must come with clean hands, the court found this a proper case to interfere and allowed the application, restraining disciplinary action on account of the strike, with costs in the cause. Judgment delivered virtually at Kakamega on 27th February, 2025 by David Nderitu, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court should halt the claimants' internal disciplinary processes based on the alleged strike pending determination of the claim on the strike's legality

Holding

The application was allowed; the claimants were restrained from taking or continuing disciplinary action against employees, union members or non-members on account of participation in the strike of 1st-3rd October, 2024.

Reasoning

The claimants filed a claim seeking a declaration that the strike of 1st October, 2024 was illegal and unprotected, yet issued show-cause and suspension letters on the same ground before the claim was determined. The show-cause letters suggested the claimants had already determined the strike's illegality, the very issue pending before the court. Since the outcome of the cause would determine whether the claimants had the right to discipline, the court held it a proper case to interfere with the employer's prerogative, applying the principle that he who seeks equity must come with clean hands.

p. 5
02

Costs of the application

Holding

Costs were made costs in the cause.

Reasoning

Having allowed the application, the court declined to award costs to either party immediately, instead directing that costs abide the outcome of the main claim.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the legality of a strike is the subject of a pending cause at the employer's own instance, the employer must await the court's determination before commencing disciplinary action arising from that strike.
  • The court may interfere with an employer's prerogative to discipline employees where the subject of the disciplinary process is the very issue pending before the court.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claimants by themselves and or through their agents, employees, servants and or anyone acting under their instructions is restrained from initiating or proceeding with any disciplinary action and or taking any disciplinary action against any of their employees, union members or non-members of the applicant, on account of their participation in the strike that took place between 1st and 3rd October, 2024.
  2. 2.The costs shall be in the cause.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 41
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 162(2)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12
  • Employment and Labour Relations (Procedure) Rules, 2024Rules 44 & 45
  • Labour Relations ActSection 80
  • ILO conventionsNot specified

Cases cited (4)

  • Yatich Kangungo v Board of Directors, Kenya Airports Authority & 2 others
    (2017) eKLR
  • Anne Wambui Kamuiru v Kenya Airways Limited
    (2016) eKLR
  • Professor Gitile J. Naituli v Multi Media University College & another
    [2013] KEELRC 221 (KLR)
  • Ratemo v Kenya Film Commission & another
    [2014] KEIC 3 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 41 & 162(2) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "West Kenya Sugar Company Ltd & 3 others v Kenya Union of Sugar Plantation and Allied Worker (Cause E030 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 615 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/615/eng@2025-02-27

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