[2015] KEELRC 1370 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant had not established the existence of a recognition or collective agreement with the respondent, and therefore lacked the proper standing to bring the suit. Additionally, the court held that the claim was time-barred, as the dismissal occurred in 2000 and the suit was filed in 2014,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELRC 1370 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers; Respondent: Mutuguta Farmers Co-operative Society Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 67 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- suit dismissed with costs
- Judges
- B Ongaya
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Dismissal, Collective Bargaining Agreements, Limitation of Actions, Contractual Claims
- 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 Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers
Applicant
Mutuguta Farmers Co-operative Society Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant had locus standi to bring the suit in absence of a recognition and collective agreement with the respondent.
- 2 Whether the dismissal of the grievants was unfair and if they are entitled to the reliefs sought.
- 3 Whether the claim was time-barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant had not established the existence of a recognition or collective agreement with the respondent, and therefore lacked the proper standing to bring the suit. Additionally, the court held that the claim was time-barred, as the dismissal occurred in 2000 and the suit was filed in 2014, well beyond the six-year limitation period for contractual claims under section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act. The claimant also failed to provide a contractual basis or sufficient evidence for the reliefs sought. Consequently, the suit was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed with costs
Orders
- The claimant's suit is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
CAUSE NO.67 OF 2014
KENYA UNION OF COMMERCIAL FOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS.....CLAIMANT
-VERSUS-
MUTUGUTA FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED..........RESPONDENT
(Before Hon. Justice Byram Ongaya on Friday 6th March, 2015)
JUDGMENT
The claimant filed the memorandum of claim on 06. 06. 2014 for unfair dismissal of its members Filimino Kaburu, Silas Mbaya, Nzalino Miriti and Fredrick Mputhia. The claimant prayed for orders against the respondent for payment to the grievants for notice, salary arrears for six months, worked days overtime, annual leave, gratuity and full compensation together with the costs of the suit.
The respondent filed the response to the claim on 16. 10. 2014 through Wahome Gikonyo & Company Advocates. The respondent prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the parties had not concluded the relevant recognition and collective agreements and the suit should therefore fail for want of the claimant’s proper standing. The respondent urged that it was provisionally registered on 24. 05. 2000 as a cooperative society and the grievants had worked for it from 24. 05. 2000 to 7. 08. 2000 when they were dismissed for gross misconduct of stealing coffee.
The court finds that the claimant has failed to establish existence of a collective and recognition agreement concluded with the respondent. The claimant has not established the contractual basis between the claimants and the respondent upon which the claimant would justify the kind of reliefs as prayed for in the memorandum of claim. Further, the claimants having been dismissed on 7. 08. 2000 and valid or timely conciliation proceedings having not been established to have taken place, the court finds that the suit was filed after lapsing of the six years for contractual claims under section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap.22 then applicable to such actions. In any event, the claimant has not in the pleadings, evidence or submissions given any suggestion of the monies to be awarded by the court under the prayers made.
For the reasons set out and in conclusion, the claimant’s suit is dismissed with costs.
Signed, datedanddeliveredin court atNyerithisFriday, 6th March, 2015.
BYRAM ONGAYA
JUDGE