Bakery Confectionery Food Manufacturing & Allied Workers Union (K) v Everest Industries Limited & another (Cause E476 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 1021 (KLR) (23 April 2026) (Ruling)

Bakery Confectionery Food Manufacturing & Allied Workers Union (K) v Everest Industries Limited & another (Cause E476 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 1021 (KLR) (23 April 2026) (Ruling)

Contempt was not proved to the required standard as there was no evidence of deliberate and wilful disobedience by the Respondent or its directors; the Respondent's conduct amounted to partial compliance but undermined the substance of the orders. The threshold for lifting the corporate veil was not met as no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEELRC 1021 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Bakery Confectionery Food Manufacturing & Allied Workers Union (K); Respondent: Everest Industries Limited; Proposed 2nd Respondent: Consolidated Human Resources Solutions Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause E476 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Relations Court Cause / Ruling on Two Opposed Motions: Contempt Application by Claimant and Discharge/variation Application by Respondent
Outcome
Both applications declined; no finding of contempt; injunction remains in force.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Injunctions, Trade Union Rights, Lifting Corporate Veil, Employment Status, Disciplinary Process
Source Language
en
Employment Law Labour Relations Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Injunctions Trade Union Rights Lifting Corporate Veil Employment Status +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bakery Confectionery Food Manufacturing & Allied Workers Union (K)

Claimant/applicant

Everest Industries Limited

Respondent

Consolidated Human Resources Solutions Ltd

Proposed 2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment and Labour Relations Court Cause / Ruling on Two Opposed Motions: Contempt Application by Claimant and Discharge/variation Application by Respondent

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent and its directors are in contempt of court for violating court orders restraining victimization of union members and lockout.
  2. 2 Whether the corporate veil should be lifted to cite directors personally for contempt.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent complied with court orders of 1st July 2024 and 9th April 2025.

Ratio Decidendi

Contempt was not proved to the required standard as there was no evidence of deliberate and wilful disobedience by the Respondent or its directors; the Respondent's conduct amounted to partial compliance but undermined the substance of the orders. The threshold for lifting the corporate veil was not met as no personal acts of disobedience by the directors were shown. Discharge of the injunctive orders was premature and unmerited as the core issue of victimization remains unresolved.

Court Disposition

Both applications declined; no finding of contempt; injunction remains in force.

Orders

  • Claimant's application dated 5th May 2025 is declined.
  • Respondent's application dated 12th May 2025 is declined.