[2013] KEELRC 879 (KLR)

[2013] KEELRC 879 (KLR)

The court found that the consent filed in court could not be admitted or adopted as an order of the court because one of the Grievants, Hezron Guyo, expressly disowned the consent and denied signing it or receiving any settlement. The court emphasized that the consent was not negotiated with the involvement of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEELRC 879 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya Petroleum Oil Workers Union; Respondent: Abdallah Fathia Salim/Digo Road Kobil Service Station; Respondent: Kenol Kobil Co Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 118 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Cause / Interlocutory Ruling on Consent and Further Directions
Outcome
Consent not adopted; matter to proceed unless valid settlement reached.
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Settlement Agreements, Trade Union Representation
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Settlement Agreements Trade Union Representation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Petroleum Oil Workers Union

Applicant

Abdallah Fathia Salim/Digo Road Kobil Service Station

Respondent

Kenol Kobil Co Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment and Labour Cause / Interlocutory Ruling on Consent and Further Directions

  1. 1 Whether the consent filed in court was valid and binding on the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the court should adopt the consent as an order of the court.
  3. 3 Whether the alleged settlement was properly negotiated through the parties' representatives.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the consent filed in court could not be admitted or adopted as an order of the court because one of the Grievants, Hezron Guyo, expressly disowned the consent and denied signing it or receiving any settlement. The court emphasized that the consent was not negotiated with the involvement of the union or the parties' representatives, which is essential in employment disputes involving unionized employees. The court held that, in the absence of a valid and properly executed consent, and given the Industrial Court's duty to promote genuine conciliation, the purported settlement could not be recognized. The parties were directed to negotiate through their proper...

Court Disposition

Consent not adopted; matter to proceed unless valid settlement reached.

Orders

  • The consent filed on 30 September 2013 is not admitted or adopted by the court.
  • Parties are at liberty to negotiate through their representatives; failing which, the Cause will proceed to hearing.