[2017] KEELRC 1617 (KLR)
The court declined to grant the interlocutory orders sought by the Claimant because the issues raised, including whether the Respondents were properly sued and whether the redundancies were unlawful, involved contested facts that could not be resolved without taking evidence. The court held that such matters should...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELRC 1617 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union; Respondent: Zingo Investment Limited; Respondent: Reddamac Leather Centre Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 2102 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Interlocutory Application Ruling
- Outcome
- interlocutory_application_dismissed
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Redundancy Procedure, Union Membership Rights, Recognition Agreements
- 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
Kenya Shoe and Leather Workers Union
Applicant
Zingo Investment Limited
Respondent
Reddamac Leather Centre Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondents unlawfully declared union members redundant.
- 2 Whether the Respondents properly received and acted upon union check off forms and recognition agreement.
- 3 Whether interlocutory relief can be granted in light of contested facts.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to grant the interlocutory orders sought by the Claimant because the issues raised, including whether the Respondents were properly sued and whether the redundancies were unlawful, involved contested facts that could not be resolved without taking evidence. The court held that such matters should be determined at the full hearing of the main claim, not at the interlocutory stage. Accordingly, the application was dismissed and the parties were directed to set the main claim for hearing on a priority basis.
Court Disposition
interlocutory_application_dismissed
Orders
- No interlocutory orders granted; main claim to be fixed for hearing on priority basis.
- Costs of the application to be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO 2102 OF 2016
KENYA SHOE AND LEATHER WORKERS UNION….........CLAIMANT
VERSUS
ZINGO INVESTMENT LIMITED…….………......…1STRESPONDENT
REDDAMAC LEATHER CENTRE LIMITED…...….2NDRESPONDENT
RULING
1. This application is brought by the Claimant by Notice of Motion dated 5th October 2016 seeking the following orders:
a) An order restraining the Respondent from unlawfully declaring its members redundant
b) An order reinstating all the thirty three (33) employees declared redundant;
c) An order directing the Respondent to pay accrued salaries for September 2016 to the employees declared redundant.
2. The application which is supported by the affidavit of the Claimant’s General Secretary, Julius Ndombi Maina sworn on 5th October 2016 is based on the following grounds:
a) That the Respondent has a total workforce of seventy five (75) employees out of which the Claimant has recruited thirty eight (38);
b) That on 22nd September 2016 the Claimant sent check off forms duly signed by the employees of the Respondent acknowledging their membership with the Union. The Claimant requested the Respondent to deduct and remit union dues in accordance with Section 48(2) of the Labour Relations Act;
c) That on 22nd September 2016 the Claimant sent a model Recognition Agreement for consideration by the Respondent and asked for a meeting on 30th September 2016;
d) That upon receiving the aforesaid documents the Respondent decided to declare all the union members redundant.
3. The 1st Respondent’s response is contained in a replying affidavit and a supplementary affidavit sworn by its Managing Director, Evangeline Wanjira on 17th October 2016 and 11th November 2016 respectively. Wanjira depones that the 1st Respondent, Zingo Investments Limited is a different legal entity from the 2nd Respondent, REDDAMAC Leather Centre Limited. She adds that the 1st Respondent deals with the preservation of wet slated hides and skins but does not deal with shoe and leather.
4. The 1st Respondent states that it has a workforce of 32 employees but denies receiving any check off forms or model Recognition Agreement from the Claimant. The 1st Respondent maintains that it is wrongly sued in this matter.
5. The 2nd Respondent’s response is contained in grounds of opposition dated 21st November 2016 as well as a replying affidavit sworn by its Director, Robert Njoka Muthara on 18th October 2016. He depones that the 2nd Respondent has a total workforce of nine (9) persons and that only two (2) persons named in the documents produced by the Claimant are employees of the 2nd Respondent.
6. I have looked at the pleadings and submissions filed by the parties in this application and have formed the opinion that the issues raised including the question whether the Respondents have been properly sued cannot be determined at the interlocutory stage. I say so because there are many contested issues of fact on which the Court will need to take evidence.
7. I therefore decline to make any orders at this stage and direct the parties to fix the main claim for hearing on priority basis.
8. The costs of this application will be in the cause.
9. Orders accordingly.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBITHIS 17THDAY OF MARCH 2017
LINNET NDOLO
JUDGE
Appearance:
Mr. Maina for the Claimant
Mr. Mureithi for the 1st Respondent
Mr. Mwang’ombe for the 2nd Respondent