https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2243

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAKURU ELRC CAUSE NO. E047 OF 2026 (Before Hon. Lady Justice Anna Ngibuini Mwaure) KENYA PLANTATION & AGRICULTURAL WORKERS UNION …….…….. …..CLAIMANT VERSUS RAINFOREST FARMLAND (K) LTD ………. ……..RESPONDENT RULING Introduction 1. The Claimant/Applicant filed a Notice of Motion dated 10th June 2026 under Certificate of urgency seeking the following orders that: 1.Spent 2.Pending the hearing and determination of this application inter-partes, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a temporary injunction restraining the Respondent by themselves, their agents, assigns, servants and/or representatives from dismissing, suspending, terminating, transferring, declaring redundant and/or victimizing any employee on account of their membership, participation and/or affiliation with the Claimant union. NAKURU ELRC CAUSE NO. E047 OF 2026 RULING 1 | P A G E 3.Pending the hearing and determination of this application inter-partes, this Honourable court be pleased to issue a temporary injunction restraining the Respondent by themselves, their agents, assigns, servants and/or representatives from coercing, intimidating, threatening and/or compelling employees to withdraw, recant and/or refrain from lawful participation in the activities of the Claimant union. 4.Pending hearing and determination of this cause, this Honourable Court be pleased to restrain the Respondent from interfering with the Claimant union's constitutional and statutory mandate of recruiting and organizing unionisable employees within the Respondent establishment. 5.Costs of this application be provided for. Claimant/Applicant’s supporting affidavit 2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Kenneth Musumba, the Claimant’s Branch Secretary, Naivasha, dated even date as the application. 3. The Claimant avers that it is a duly registered union under the Labour Relations Act, 2007 with the mandate to recruit and represent unionisable employees. By mid-May 2026, it had successfully recruited over 530 employees out of the NAKURU ELRC CAUSE NO. E047 OF 2026 RULING 2 | P A G E Respondent’s total workforce of about 900, thereby attaining the simple majority threshold under sections 48 and 54 of the Labour Relations Act. 4. Following this achievement, the Claimant/Applicant avers that it sent a letter dated 25th April 2026 enclosing duly signed check-off forms (Form S) and a draft Recognition Agreement to the Respondent, which were duly served and acknowledged on 29th April 2026. 5. The Claimant avers that the Respondent’s Human Resource Manager, however, deferred verification to the May payroll and raised concerns about alleged forged signatures. Subsequently, the Respondent allegedly engaged in intimidation, coercion, and victimization of employees for joining the union, including the summary dismissal of Norman Wekesa Wanjala, the grievant, a key union mobilizer. The dismissal was said to be malicious and discriminatory, contrary to the Constitution of Kenya, the Labour Relations Act, 2007, and the Employment Act, 2007. 6. Further, the Claimant avers that the Respondent reportedly published names of union members on the company notice board to intimidate and compel them to withdraw their membership, actions amounting to NAKURU ELRC CAUSE NO. E047 OF 2026 RULING 3 | P A G E harassment and violation of employees’ constitutional and statutory rights to freely join and participate in trade union activities without fear of retaliation. Claimant’s witness supporting affidavit 7. The witness Norman Wekesa Wanjala’s supporting affidavit dated 10th June 2026 stated that he was Respondent’s former General Worker, 8. The Witness avers that his summary dismissal on or about 5th May 2026 was unlawful and motivated by anti-union discrimination. He explained that he had actively participated in lawful trade union activities, including sensitizing, mobilizing, and recruiting unionisable employees into the Claimant, and was among the key organizers of the recruitment drive. 9. Following this, the Witness avers that its management allegedly became hostile and targeted him with false and malicious accusations of poor performance and gross misconduct, issuing a show-cause letter on 22nd April 2026. 10. The witness maintained that he was never subjected to any lawful appraisal or improvement process, and that the alleged poor performance stemmed from operational constraints such as NAKURU ELRC CAUSE NO. E047 OF 2026 RULING 4 | P A G E inadequate supply of flowers and difficult working conditions. 11. Despite his explanation, the Respondent management ignored his defence and proceeded with a biased disciplinary process, culminating in his dismissal. 12. The Witness believes the termination coincided with the union recruitment campaign and was driven by malice and retaliation, noting that other employees involved in union activities were similarly threatened, intimidated, and coerced by the Respondent’s management. 13. Parties canvassed the application by way of written submissions. Claimant/Applicant’s submissions 14.The Claimant submitted that after recruiting over 530 employees surpassing the statutory majority threshold under sections 48 and 54 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007, the Respondent resorted to intimidation, profiling, and dismissal of union members instead of recognizing the union. The Claimant submitted that Wanjala’s dismissal was procedurally unfair, unsupported by valid reasons under sections 43 and 45 of the NAKURU ELRC CAUSE NO. E047 OF 2026 RULING 5 | P A G E Employment Act, 2007, violated safeguards under section 41 of the Employment Act on fair hearing, and contravened section 46(e) of the Employment Act which prohibits dismissal for union participation. 15.The Claimant further invokes Articles 41 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, sections 4 and 5 of the Labour Relations Act, and ILO Conventions 87 and 98, arguing that the Respondent’s conduct amounted to union-busting and retaliation. The Claimant relied on the case of Giella vs Cassman Brown [1973] EA 358; the Claimant maintains it has established a prima facie case, demonstrated irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favours protecting workers’ rights. 16.The Claimant therefore urges the court to reinstate Norman Wekesa Wanjala with full benefits or, alternatively, award maximum compensation, while granting injunctive reliefs to safeguard constitutional labour rights. 17.The Respondent did not file a response or submission. NAKURU ELRC CAUSE NO. E047 OF 2026 RULING 6 | P A G E Analysis and determination 18.The court has considered the application, supporting affidavit and submissions; the issue for determination is whether the application is merited. 19.In Giella vs Cassman Brown (Supra), the court set out the conditions established before an order of injunction is granted, which are as follows: “First, an applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success; secondly, an interlocutory injunction will not normally be granted unless the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury which would not be adequately compensated by an award of damages. Thirdly, if the court is in doubt, it will decide an application on the balance of convenience.” 20. In this instant case, by mid-May 2026, the Claimant union had recruited over 530 employees out of the Respondent’s workforce of about 900, thereby attaining the statutory simple majority under sections 48 and 54 of the Labour Relations Act. The Claimant Union then sent a letter dated 25th April 2026 enclosing check-off forms and a draft Recognition Agreement, which the Respondent acknowledged on 29th April 2026. The Claimant NAKURU ELRC CAUSE NO. E047 OF 2026 RULING 7 | P A G E asserts that instead of recognizing the union, the Respondent’s HR Manager raised concerns about alleged forged signatures and resorted to intimidation, including the summary dismissal of Norman Wekesa Wanjala, a key union mobilizer, alongside public posting of union members’ names. In contrast, Wanjala himself avers that his dismissal on 5th May 2026 was unlawful, procedurally unfair, and retaliatory, explaining that he was falsely accused of poor performance, issued a show-cause letter on 22nd April 2026, and subjected to a biased disciplinary process despite operational challenges such as inadequate flower supply. He maintains that the termination coincided with the union recruitment drive and was driven by malice, noting that other union members were similarly threatened and coerced. 21.The principles set out in the case of Giella vs Cassman Brown (Supra) as to the justification of granting injunction have been satisfied. The Claimant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success and demonstrated that irreparable harm would result if injunctive relief is denied. It has shown that the balance of convenience tilts in its favour. Accordingly, the court NAKURU ELRC CAUSE NO. E047 OF 2026 RULING 8 | P A G E is persuaded that the requirements for the grant of an injunction have been duly met. The Claimant recruited above 530 members out of 900 employees and advised the Respondents. The Respondent did not take any steps and did not participate in these proceedings making the application unopposed. 22.The court is persuaded by the pleadings and submissions hereto that the Claimant’s application vide their Notice of motion dated 10th June 2026 is merited and is granted. 23. Each party will meet their costs. Order accordingly. Dated, Signed and Delivered virtually at Nakuru this 31st Day of July, 2026. ANNA NGIBUINI MWAURE JUDGE ORDER In view of the declaration of measures restricting Court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. NAKURU ELRC CAUSE NO. E047 OF 2026 RULING 9 | P A G E They have waived compliance with Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open Court. In permitting this course, this Court has been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the Court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which impose on this Court the duty of the Court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes. A signed copy will be availed to each party upon payment of Court fees. ANNA NGIBUINI MWAURE JUDGE NAKURU ELRC CAUSE NO. E047 OF 2026 RULING 10 | P A G E