[2022] KEELRC 774 (KLR)
The court held that non-unionisable employees, such as the intended interested parties, cannot be enjoined as interested parties in a suit filed by a union on behalf of its members for the purpose of seeking substantive reliefs against the respondent. The Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELRC 774 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Dockworkers Union; Respondent: Kenya Ports Authority; Applicant: Bernard A. Amake; Applicant: Stephen Ngenya Kamau
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E088 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Applications for Joinder as Interested Parties
- Outcome
- applications for joinder as interested parties dismissed
- Judges
- AK Nzei
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Disciplinary Procedure, Unionisable Vs Non Unionisable Employees
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dockworkers Union
Applicant
Kenya Ports Authority
Respondent
Bernard A. Amake
Applicant
Stephen Ngenya Kamau
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Applications for Joinder as Interested Parties
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether non-unionisable employees can be enjoined as interested parties in a suit filed by a union on behalf of its members.
- 2 Whether the intended interested parties can seek reliefs against the respondent by being joined as interested parties.
- 3 Whether the applications for joinder meet the procedural requirements under the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that non-unionisable employees, such as the intended interested parties, cannot be enjoined as interested parties in a suit filed by a union on behalf of its members for the purpose of seeking substantive reliefs against the respondent. The Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016 require that any party wishing to refer a dispute to the court must file a statement of claim or other appropriate pleadings. Interested parties are not permitted to raise independent claims or seek reliefs through joinder; they must institute their own proceedings in accordance with the Rules. If their claims share common questions of law or fact with the existing suit, they...
Court Disposition
applications for joinder as interested parties dismissed
Orders
- The Notice of Motion applications dated 24th September 2021 and 27th September 2021 are dismissed.
- There shall be no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
44 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NO. E088 OF 2021
DOCKWORKERS UNION......................................................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
KENYA PORTS AUTHORITY..........................................................................RESPONDENT
AND
1. BERNARD A. AMAKE
2. STEPEHN NGENYA KAMAU......INTENDED INTERESTED PARTIES/APPLICANTS
R U L I N G
1. The suit herein was instituted by the Claimant Trade Union on behalf of the grievants who are the Claimant’s members, and whose names are listed in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim dated 14th September 2021 and filed in Court on 15th September 2021. The grievants are all unionisable employees of the Respondent, Kenya Ports Authority. The reliefs sought in the claim are as follows:-
a) a declaration that the Respondent is bound by the disciplinary procedures adopted in the Human Resource Manual.
b) a declaration that the show cause letters issued long after the period for initiating the disciplinary action had lapsed is (are) illegal and unlawful and the same amount to procedural unfairness.
c) a permanent order of injection to restrain the Respondent, its servants or agents from constituting a hearing panel to hear the grievants on the alleged offences they committed.
d) costs of the suit.
2. The Claimant also filed, on 15th September 2021, a Notice of Motion dated 14th September 2021 seeking injunctive orders:-
a) restraining the Respondent, its servants and or agents from commencing disciplinary proceedings against the grievants pending hearing and determination of the application.
b) restraining the Respondent from taking any action which is prejudicial to the subject matter of the case against the grievants pending hearing and determination of the application.
c) restraining the Respondent, its servants and or agents from commencing disciplinary proceedings against the grievants pending hearing and determination of the claim or further orders.
d) restraining the respondent from taking any action which is prejudicial to the subject matter of the case against the grievants pending hearing and determination of the claim.
e) costs of the application.
3. On 29th September 2021, the Claimant and the Respondent agreed to interim orders being granted in terms of (a) and (b) above. Interim Orders were accordingly granted. The application is pending hearing and determination.
4. In the meantime, one Bernard A. Amake, a non-unionisable employee of the Respondent, filed the Notice of Motion dated 24th September 2021 seeking to be enjoined to the suit herein as an interested party. Just like the grievants in the claim herein, the said applicant (hereinafter referred to as the 1st Intended Interested Party), is aggrieved by a letter to show cause issued to him by the Respondent on 24th August 2021, and states that he wants to be enjoined in the suit herein as an interested party in order to safeguard his interest which is not taken care of by the Claimant herein; and yet he faces the same predicament as sought to be addressed in the suit herein.
5. On 28th September 2021, one Stephen Ngenya Kamau (hereinafter referred to as the 2nd Intended Interested Party), filed a Notice of Motion dated 27th September 2021, seeking to be enjoined to the suit herein as an interested party in order to safeguard his interests which he alleges are not taken care of by the claimant herein, and yet he faces a similar predicament as is intended to be addressed in the suit herein.
6. Like the 1st Intended Interested Party, the 2nd Intended Interested Party is a non-unionisable employee of the Respondent and states that he was on 24th August 2021 served with a Show Cause letter by the Respondent with the aim of dismissing him from his employment.
7. The two applications by the 1st and 2nd Intended Interested Parties (dated 24th September 2021 and 27th September 2021 respectively) have not been opposed. Indeed, counsel for the Respondent told the Court on 2/11/2021 that the Respondent was not opposed to the Notice of Motion dated 27th September 2021. The Court directed that the two applications, dated 24/9/2021 and 27/9/2021 respectively, be heard together on 6th December 2021. Hearing of the applications proceeded orally.
8. Counsel for the 2nd Intended Interested Party told the Court that the intention of the Intended Interested Parties is to join the suit as parties thereto. He invited the Court to make such orders as may be appropriate.
9. For the Intended Interested Parties to present their respective grievances to this court and for them to seek any kind of relief against the Respondent herein, they will have to file and present proper pleadings to this Court. It is not clear how they intend to do so as interested parties in the suit herein.
10. Rule 4 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016 provides that any party who wishes to refer a dispute to this court under any written law shall file a statement of claim setting out the particulars listed in that Rule. Rule 7, on the other hand, provides for institution of petitions and judicial Review proceedings, while Rule 8 of the Rules provides for institution of appeals in this Court.
11. The 1st and 2nd Intended Interested Parties cannot, therefore, raise claims and seek reliefs against the Respondent by being enjoined in the suit herein as interested parties. They can only raise claims and seek reliefs against the Respondent, or indeed any other party, by instituting appropriate pleadings in the manner provided in the Rules.
12. If the Intended Interested Parties’ intention is having their respective claims heard together with those of the grievants herein, they may, if and when their claims are filed, either seek consolidation of such suits as may appear to have some common question of fact or law as provided in Rule 23 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016 or seek to have a test suit selected and tried in accordance with Rule 24 of the said Rules.
13. In sum, I find no merit in the Notice of Motion Applications dated 24th September 2021 and 27th September 2021 respectively, and the same are hereby dismissed with no Orders as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
AGNES KITIKU NZEI
JUDGE
ORDER
In view of restrictions on physical Court operations occasioned by the COVID-19 Pandemic, this Ruling has been delivered via Microsoft Teams Online Platform. A signed copy will be availed to each party upon payment of Court fees.
AGNES KITIKU NZEI
JUDGE
Appearance:
Mr. Ochieng for Claimant
Ms. Lilian Kamau for Respondent
Mr. Tindi for Intended Interested Parties/Applicant