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 provided· [2025] KEELRC 2105 (KLR)

Njoroge (On Her Behalf and on Behalf of 93 others) & another v Zena Roses Limited (Cause 230 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2105 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
11 July 2025
MOMaureen Onyango
4,545 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenyan workers who joined an unprotected strike lost their dismissal claims, but the flower company must still pay a withheld 11.5% salary increment and union dues.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 1st Claimant, a former employee, sued on her own behalf and on behalf of fellow former employees of the Respondent, a flower-growing company, joined by the 2nd Claimant, the recognised trade union. The Grievants were suspended and then dismissed after participating in a strike on 18th June 2018 occasioned by the Respondent's persistent delay in paying salaries contrary to clause 34 of the CBA. The Claimants sought declarations that the suspension and dismissal were unlawful, twelve months' compensation, the unimplemented 11.5% CBA salary increment, NSSF and NHIF arrears, salary in lieu of notice, union dues, and certificates of service. The Respondent defended the dismissal as a lawful response to an unprotected strike, contending show cause letters were issued and ignored. The Respondent closed its case without calling evidence. The court framed three issues: whether the strike was protected, whether the Respondent had valid reason to dismiss, and what orders should issue. Applying section 76 of the Labour Relations Act and the Court of Appeal decision in Lamathe Hygiene Food, the court held the strike was unprotected for want of conciliation and a written seven days' strike notice. However, relying on Mohammed Yakub Athman v Kenya Ports Authority, it held the Respondent was still bound by section 41 of the Employment Act, and found from the show cause letters and delivery notes that procedural fairness was observed, dismissing the unfair termination claim. The uncontroverted 11.5% increment claim succeeded, with the Respondent directed to tabulate the dues within 60 days; union dues were ordered paid within 60 days; NSSF and NHIF prayers were declined; each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the strike of 18th June 2018 was protected

Holding

The strike was unprotected because the dispute was not referred to conciliation and no seven days' written strike notice was issued.

Reasoning

The court applied section 76 of the Labour Relations Act as explained by the Court of Appeal in Lamathe Hygiene Food. While the dispute concerned terms and conditions of employment (delayed salaries contrary to clause 34 of the CBA), there was no evidence of a failed conciliation process and no written strike notice issued seven days prior to the cessation of work. All three requirements must co-exist for a strike to qualify as protected.

p. 8
02

Whether the Respondent had valid reason to dismiss the Grievants and complied with procedural fairness

Holding

The Respondent had a valid reason (participation in an unprotected strike) and complied with section 41 of the Employment Act, so the dismissal was fair.

Reasoning

Under section 80 of the Labour Relations Act, employees who engage in an unprotected strike are liable for disciplinary action. However, the employer must still observe procedural fairness under section 41 of the Employment Act. The court analysed the show cause letters and delivery notes and found the 1st Claimants were given an opportunity to defend themselves but declined to appear before the disciplinary hearing panel on 27th June 2018.

p. 9
03

Claim for the unpaid 11.5% salary increment under clause 35 of the CBA

Holding

Judgment entered for the 1st Claimants as the Respondent did not rebut the claim.

Reasoning

The Respondent did not adduce any evidence to rebut the Claimants' assertion that they were entitled to the 11.5% increment for the first year of the CBA 2017-2019. The court entered judgment and directed the Respondent to tabulate the amount due and submit it to court within 60 days for entry of final judgment.

p. 9
04

Claims for unremitted NSSF and NHIF dues and unremitted union dues

Holding

NSSF and NHIF prayers declined; union dues ordered paid.

Reasoning

The court held it cannot grant reliefs for unremitted NSSF and NHIF dues because these are statutory bodies with powers to recover unremitted monies from the employer. The 2nd Claimant's claim for unremitted union dues was uncontroverted, and the Respondent was ordered to pay within 60 days.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • The right to strike under Article 41(2)(d) of the Constitution must be executed in accordance with the law, and a strike is protected only where the three requirements of section 76 of the Labour Relations Act co-exist.
  • Even where an employer dismisses an employee for participating in an illegal strike, procedural fairness under section 41 of the Employment Act must be adhered to.
  • An employee who takes part in a strike not in compliance with the Labour Relations Act is deemed to have breached the employment contract and is liable for disciplinary action and not entitled to pay during the strike.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the claim for compensation for unfair and unlawful termination
  2. 2.Judgment entered for the 1st Claimants in respect of the unpaid 11.5% salary increment; Respondent directed to tabulate the amount due and submit to court within 60 days for entry of final judgment
  3. 3.Decline of the prayers for unremitted NSSF and NHIF dues
  4. 4.Order that the Respondent pays the unremitted union dues to the 2nd Claimant within 60 days of the judgment, failing which the 2nd Claimant may seek further orders
  5. 5.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 41 [2][d]
  • Labour Relations ActSection 2 (definition of strike), Section 46, Section 76, Section 80[1]
  • Employment ActSections 41, 45[2][a], [c], [4][b]

Cases cited (4)

  • Red Lands Roses Limited v Kenya Plantations and Agricultural Workers Union
    [2020] eKLR
  • Evans Sagwa Rumura v Insignia Kenya Limited
    [2022] eKLR
  • Lamathe Hygiene Food v Wesley Patrick Simasi Wafula & 8 Others
    [2016] KECA 759 [KLR]
  • Mohammed Yakub Athman & 18 others v Kenya Ports Authority
    [2017] KECA 606 [KLR]
Jurisdiction invoked
Jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over employment and labour disputes (not expressly cited in the judgment text)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Njoroge (On Her Behalf and on Behalf of 93 others) & another v Zena Roses Limited (Cause 230 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2105 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2105/eng@2025-07-11

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