[2016] KEELRC 1373 (KLR)
The Court found that there was no evidence on record to show that the parties were notified of the Award delivered on 30th March 2012, as had been directed. Given the transition from the Ministry of Labour to the Judiciary at the time, it was possible that no communication was passed to the parties. The Respondent's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 1373 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: KUDHEIHA Workers; Respondent: Kenya Railways Golf Club
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 891 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Applications for Review and Adoption of Terminal Dues
- Outcome
- Application for review allowed; Award set aside; dispute to be heard afresh.
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Termination, Collective Bargaining Agreement, Review of Award, Terminal Dues, Procedural Fairness
- 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
KUDHEIHA Workers
Applicant
Kenya Railways Golf Club
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Applications for Review and Adoption of Terminal Dues
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the parties were properly notified of the Award delivered on 30th March 2012.
- 2 Whether the Respondent's application for review should be allowed due to lack of notification.
- 3 Whether the Claimant's tabulation of terminal dues should be adopted by the Court.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that there was no evidence on record to show that the parties were notified of the Award delivered on 30th March 2012, as had been directed. Given the transition from the Ministry of Labour to the Judiciary at the time, it was possible that no communication was passed to the parties. The Respondent's application for review was principally based on lack of notification, and the Claimant's application for adoption of terminal dues indicated ongoing disagreement. The Court determined that, in the interests of justice and fairness, the Award should be reviewed and set aside, and the dispute heard afresh to allow both parties a full opportunity to present their cases.
Court Disposition
Application for review allowed; Award set aside; dispute to be heard afresh.
Orders
- The application for review is allowed.
- The Award dated 30th March 2012 is reviewed and set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NUMBER 891 OF 2011
KUDHEIHA WORKERS …..…………………………………...CLAIMANT
VERSUS
KENYA RAILWAYS GOLF CLUB…………………….……..RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Court delivered an Award on 30th March 2012. The following orders issued:-
Termination of the Grievant’s contract was substantively and procedurally unfair.
The Grievant shall be paid by the Respondent 6 months’ salary in compensation at Kshs.150,000/=.
The Grievant shall be paid all terminal dues, in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement in place at the date of termination.
No order on the costs.
2. The Award has not been satisfied 4 years later.
3. Instead, the Respondent filed an Application for review dated 8th July, 2013, while the claimant filed an Application dated 27th February, 2015, seeking its tabulation of terminal dues based on the relevant Collective Bargaining Agreement, adopted by the Court for purposes of execution.
4. The two applications have twice been forwarded to the Trial Judge in Mombasa for consideration.
5. Upon perusal of the record the Court finds:-
The Award was delivered in the absence of the two parties for reasons which are recorded on the 30th March 2012.
There was an order the Court would notify both parties on delivery and forward copies of the Award to the parties.
There is nothing on record to show parties were notified as directed.
As the decision was made at the height of the cross-over from the Ministry of Labour to the Judiciary, it is possible no communication was passed on to the parties for their necessary action.
The application for review is principally on the ground that the Respondent did not get to know of the Court’s decision in good time. Other grounds touch on interpretation of the law and evidence given at the trial.
The Claimant’s application to have its tabulation of terminal dues adopted, indicates parties were not able to agree at their own level, what amount was due under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
It is unfortunate that even with the Award of the Court to guide the parties on settlement, parties have not been able to settle this dispute which arose in 2009.
The Court is satisfied from the two applications that parties need to be heard afresh for the Court to determine all the issues in dispute in full.
6. IT IS SO ORDERED:-
(a) The application for review is allowed on the following terms:-
(i) Award dated 30th May is reviewed and set aside.
(iii) The dispute be heard afresh in Nairobi.
(iv) The application for adoption of terminal dues ascomputed by the claimant is spent.
(b) Costs in the cause.
Dated and signed at Mombasa this 3rd day of March 2016
(signed)
James Rika
Judge
Delivered this 18th day of March 2016
In the presence of:-
……………………………………………………………for the Claimant and
………………………………………………………………for the Respondent.
Abuodha J. N.
Judge