Kenya Shipping Clearance Freight Logistics and Warehouse Workers Union v Tea Warehouse Limited & another (Cause E017 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 1048 (KLR) (23 April 2026) (Ruling)

Kenya Shipping Clearance Freight Logistics and Warehouse Workers Union v Tea Warehouse Limited & another (Cause E017 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 1048 (KLR) (23 April 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1048 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa Cause E017 of 2024 M Mbarũ, J April 23, 2026 Between Kenya Shipping Clearance Freight Logistics and Warehouse Workers Union Claimant and Tea Warehouse Limited Respondent and C Steinweg Bridge (K) Limited Intended Interested Party Ruling 1.The Claimant filed an application dated 22nd October 2025 under the provisions of article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, Rules 45 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules and Order 23 Rule 1 and Order 40 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking orders:1.Spent.2.Pending the hearing and determination of this application, the court be pleased to issue a temporary conservatory order restraining the Respondent, its directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, subsidiaries, affiliates ad or any persons acting on its behalf or instructions from howsoever selling, transferring, assigning, alienating, charging, mortgaging, diluting, encumbering, conferring any interest in or in any other manner whatsoever dealing with the Respondent's entire share capital, any dividend rights and any other interests held in the following companies:a.Neslay Limited – number C.1022 – P.O. Box 985, Village Market, Nairobi.b.Consolidated Msa Ltd – number C.2133 P.O. Bc 98066 Mombasac.C-Steiweg Bridge Kenya – Number C-PVT – EYUBQE9P P.O. Box 87227 – Mombasa.3.Pending the hearing and determination of this application, the court be pleased to issue an order for the provisional attachment of the said shares and all related financial interests held by the Respondent in the companies listed in prayer 2 above.4.The court be pleased to issue an order for the prohibitory attachment of any and all movable assets registered in the name of the Respondent, including motor vehicles, machinery, equipment and personal effects of substantial value.5.… 2.The application is supported by the affidavit of James O. Tongi, who avers that the court possesses the requisite jurisdiction to grant the orders sought to ensure substantive justice. The Claimant secured a judgment herein and has extracted the decree, which is not satisfied by the Respondent. Despite demand, the Respondent has refused to make payments. The judgment sum represents redundancy dues owed to the Claimant union members and former employees of the Respondent. The assets of the Respondent should thus be applied to settle the judgment sum, and in default, its shares and properties of the directors should be applied for this purpose. 3.The Respondent has embarked on concealing its assets through third parties to fail to settle the decretal sum. The directors of the Respondent should be called and examined on how they intend to settle the decretal sum.There is no reply from the Respondent. 4.The Intended Interested Party, C. Steinweg (K) Limited, filed an application dated 4th December 2025, under the provisions of section 20(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Rule 47 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, Order 1 Rule 3, 5, and 10(2), Order 2 Rule 15 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking orders:1.The Intended Interested Party be enjoined as an interested party to the Claimants’ Notice of Motion application dated 22nd October 2025.2.The Intended Interested Party’s name is hereby struck out entirely from the Claimant’s Notice of Motion dated 22nd October 2025, particularly in respect of prayers 2, 3, and 4 therein.3.In the alternative to prayer 2 above, the interested party is hereby allowed to participate and respond to the Claimant’s notice of motion application dated 22nd October 2025.4.Costs be provided for. 5.The application is supported by the affidavit of Daniel Porteous, the managing director, who avers that the Intended Interested Party is neither a party nor a Respondent herein. The Respondent is not a shareholder of the Intended Interested Party, nor is the Intended Interested Party a director of the Respondent. 6.Porteous argues that there is no identifiable interest or state in the proceedings herein. If the orders sought herein are not allowed, the Intended Interested Party shall be adversely affected since it has never been a party herein. 7.The prejudice to be suffered is clear and includes financial loss, particularly if shares are sold at undervalued, loss of influence and control over the timing of the sale and the potential purchaser of the shares in question, potential breach of contractual obligation set in the shareholder agreement, and potential disadvantageous tax implications to the Intended Interested Party. 8.Porteous avers that it is necessary for the Intended Interested Party to participate in these proceedings since it was discovered that the Claimant obtained judgment here on 6 February 2024 on the basis that the Respondent failed to participate in the main suit or defend the same. The execution against the Intended Interested Party cannot be issued since the applicant herein was not served with Notice of Entry of Judgment at least 10 days before filing the application. Article 259(2) (d) is improperly and unlawfully invoked in this application herein as giving the court jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil of the Intended Interested Party without considering the established exceptions in Salomon v Salomon [1897] AC on piercing the corporate veil. 9.Porteous avers that the Claimant’s application dated 22nd October 2025 has neither provided any evidence that the Intended Interested Party is set to escape the liabilities of the Respondent to the Claimant nor that the Intended Interested Party controls the Respondent in any way, nor made any representations to the Claimant for or on behalf of the Respondent to justify treating it as identical to the Respondent. The Claimant has not provided any evidence that the Intended Interested Party is responsible for or acted deceitfully towards the Claimant or its members in respect of the subject matter of the suit, that is, the non-payment of redundancy benefits to the Respondent’s employees. The Claimant's application is overreaching and an abuse of the mandatory requirements governing piercing the corporate veil. 10.It is necessary that the Intended Interested Party is joined as a party hereto to protect its rights. Determination 11.The Claimant is seeking various orders, including conservatory orders, against the assets and company shares in Neslay Limited, Consolidated Msa Ltd, and C-Steinweg Bridge Kenya. The claim further seeks prohibitory orders against the Respondent to prevent the attachment of the Respondent's property. The claim further seeks the attachment of immovable properties of various persons listed as the directors of the Respondent. Additionally, the Claimant is seeking orders that the OSC, OCPD, and the police attend, provide security to the court bailiff, and effect attachment as outlined above. 12.Also, the Claimant seeks that a Notice to Show Cause and summons be issued, compelling the Respondent directors to personally attend court and be ordered to settle the debt herein. Further, the Claimant seeks that Warrants of Arrest be issued against the directors of the Respondent, and that they be committed to civil jail for 6 months for failing to settle the decreed sum herein.The gist of the orders sought by the Claimant is to execute the judgment herein. 13.Execution proceedings in their nature follow a particular character. The court is assisted by various persons and agencies to execute its lawful orders and directions. 14.The Claimant has invoked various court mandates that do not necessarily follow the execution path envisaged under the Civil Procedure Act and the Rules thereto. The conservatory orders sought, if allowed, would not achieve the purpose of execution. The attachment proceedings sought against the Respondent and various third parties are preemptive of the execution proceedings. 15.The orders sought to have the police assist the Claimant in execution are purely premature. 16.The Claimant should secure its rights within the due process and, upon application, the attendant execution proceedings necessary. Conflating orders misses the core of such an execution process.The orders sought as couched shall not issue.On this basis, the proposed interested party's application is premature. It has no basis. 17.Accordingly, the application dated 22nd October 2025 is hereby struck out.The application dated 4th December 2025 is premature. DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI, THIS 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2026M. MBARŨJUDGEIn the presence of:Court Assistant: Catherine and Omar……………………………………………… and…………………………………..………