Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELRC 1909 (KLR)

Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Shalimar Fresh Flowers Limited (Cause E102 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1909 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 June 2025
AMAnna Ngibuini Mwaure
2,479 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

#

A Kenyan employment court refused to reinstate dismissed workers early, saying reinstatement must wait until the full case is heard.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant/Applicant union moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru by Notice of Motion dated 13th December 2024, seeking immediate reinstatement of three grievant workers without loss of benefits pursuant to a conciliator's report, and an injunction restraining the Respondent from issuing show cause, termination or dismissal letters or victimising its members, pending hearing of the main suit. The grievants, general workers in a pack house, were arrested in March 2024 over alleged theft, released without charge, then dismissed on 9th April 2024 for gross misconduct. A conciliator appointed by the Ministry of Labour found no conspiracy to steal and recommended reinstatement and salary compensation, which the Respondent did not implement or challenge in any forum. The Respondent opposed, contending the dismissal followed due process and that reinstatement is a substantive remedy unavailable at the interlocutory stage. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court found a prima facie case on the face of the application, given the conciliator's findings and the police clearance. However, since the grievants had already been dismissed, no irreparable harm would flow from refusing the injunction, and the restraint prayers were overtaken by events. Relying on the principle that reinstatement should ordinarily be granted only after a full hearing, the court declined interlocutory reinstatement, dismissed the application, directed the main suit to proceed with speed (mention on 21st July 2025), and ordered costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a prima facie case was established

Holding

A prima facie case exists on the face of the application, given the conciliator's finding of no conspiracy and the police failure to charge the grievants

Reasoning

The court perused the pleadings and the conciliator's report by the County Labour Officer, which found no conspiracy to steal since the grievants were in their area of duty, and noted the police found insufficient evidence to charge them. Applying Mrao, the facts disclosed a right apparently infringed calling for explanation or rebuttal from the Respondent.

p. 6
02

Whether irreparable injury would follow denial of the injunction

Holding

No irreparable harm would be caused because the grievants had already been dismissed

Reasoning

Having been dismissed on 9th April 2024, the grievants' employment had already come to an end; the restraint orders sought would be futile. The court found the second Giella limb unsatisfied, which is decisive against granting the interlocutory injunction.

p. 6
03

Whether reinstatement can be granted at an interlocutory stage

Holding

Reinstatement is a substantive remedy properly decided at the full hearing of the main suit

Reasoning

The court agreed with the Respondent's authorities that reinstatement should not be granted provisionally but upon full hearing of both parties, and since the same relief is prayed in the main suit, the application was dismissed to allow the suit to proceed to hearing with speed.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The Giella v Cassman Brown triple test governs interlocutory injunction applications
  • Prima facie case as defined in Mrao v First American Bank

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The interlocutory application for reinstatement and injunction is dismissed
  2. 2.The main suit to proceed for hearing with speed; mention on 21st July 2025 to confirm pre-trial directions have been met and give a hearing date
  3. 3.Applicant to be served with mention notice
  4. 4.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 45
  • Employment ActSection 44(4)(g)
  • Employment and Labour Relations (Court) Procedure Rules 2016Rule 12
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)Section 1B
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1

Cases cited (6)

  • Giella V Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd
    (1973) EA 358
  • Mrao Limited V First American Limited & 2 others
    [2003] eKLR
  • Mulwa V Marist International College
    [2025] eKLR
  • Kenya Tea Growers Association & Another V Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union
    [2018] eKLR
  • Jael Achieng Onyango V Housing Finance Development and Investment
    (2021) eKLR
  • Joan Wairimu Wanyutu V Social Service League, MP Shah Hospital
    (2019) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations (Court) Procedure Rules 2016 and Section 45 of the Employment Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Shalimar Fresh Flowers Limited (Cause E102 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1909 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1909/eng@2025-06-25

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