Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers v Laxmi Hardware Limited (Cause E060 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1469 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a union's bid to protect workers because the union offered no actual evidence of victimization.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant discharged its burden of proof to warrant the injunctive relief sought
The application was not merited; the applicant adduced no sufficient evidence of victimization, intimidation, coercion or harassment by the respondent and the motion was dismissed
The court applied Sections 107 and 112 (cited as Section 8 of the Act) of the Evidence Act and Jethwa v Shah, holding that it is not sufficient merely to swear an affidavit. The Supporting Affidavit was silent on acts or omissions from which imminent victimization could be inferred, and no member of the applicant union swore an affidavit alleging such conduct. The outsourcing arrangement with Sytamex Ventures Ltd was also unproven as no written contract was availed and the applicant did not contest that deposition.
Whether the outsourcing arrangement with Sytamex Ventures Ltd displaced the respondent's status as employer
The court found the outsourcing claim unproven on the materials, noting no written contract was availed
If believed, the respondent had outsourced its human resource function and paid Sytamex Ventures Ltd a management fee as employer. However, an outsourcing arrangement is typically a written contract between the parties and none was availed. Notably, the applicant did not contest this deposition or seek evidence on the relationship between the respondent and Sytamex Ventures Ltd.
Legal principles established
#- Whoever desires a court to give judgment on a legal right dependent on facts must prove those facts; the burden of proof lies on the person asserting the fact
- In civil cases the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's Notice of Motion dated 17th July, 2024 dismissed with no Order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Sections 4, 48, 54 and 74 of the Labour Relations Act, Section 87 of the Employment Act and the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers v Laxmi Hardware Limited (Cause E060 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1469 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1469/eng@2025-05-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.