Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Equinox Horticulture Limited; Kenya Export Floriculture, Horticulture & Allied Works Union & another (Interested Parties) (Cause E457 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2841 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court suspended only five disputed clauses of a new floriculture CBA, letting the rest benefit workers while the real dispute is decided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case
The Court found the Applicant had demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success.
Applying Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd, the Court noted the Applicant identified clauses in the impugned CBA which it contends conflict with its own CBA and with the Employment Act, and the 2nd Interested Party alleged downgrading of terms contrary to Section 26. These contested issues required examination at the full hearing, so a right apparently infringed was shown.
Whether the Applicant would suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction
No irreparable harm was demonstrated; the Court can nullify any clause found inferior to statutory minimum conditions at the full hearing.
Applying Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen, the Court held that injury is irreparable only where monetary compensation is inadequate. Here, upon full hearing the Court may nullify any clause inferior to the Employment Act minimums, so the harm is capable of remedial orders, and the applicant did not show inadequacy of damages.
Balance of convenience
The balance of convenience did not favour the Applicant, since suspending the CBA in its entirety would deprive employees of negotiated benefits.
The Court weighed the prejudice to the Respondent's employees, who would lose CBA benefits including salary increments if implementation were suspended, against the Applicant's interest. If the suit ultimately failed, employees would have suffered irreparable harm by being denied benefits, whereas targeted suspension of contested clauses preserves the Applicant's position.
Legal principles established
#- The principles for an interlocutory injunction are those in Giella v Cassman Brown: prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience.
- The existence of a prima facie case alone is insufficient; the applicant must also demonstrate irreparable injury.
Court orders
#- 1.The Court declines to grant a blanket order restraining the Respondent from implementing the CBA registered as RCA No. 131 of 2025 on 6th May 2025 in its entirety
- 2.Implementation of clauses 3, 4, 15, 26, and 36 of the impugned CBA is suspended pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.Costs shall be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, 2007 and the court's supervisory role over registered collective agreements
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Equinox Horticulture Limited; Kenya Export Floriculture, Horticulture & Allied Works Union & another (Interested Parties) (Cause E457 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2841 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E457 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2841/eng@2025-10-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.