[2014] KEELRC 377 (KLR)
The court found that the Claimant Union had not established a prima facie right to the interim orders sought, as required by the principles in Giela v. Cassman Brown. The court further noted that the dispute regarding recognition is already pending in consolidated suits (Cause Nos. 116 and 241 of 2013), and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELRC 377 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rift Valley Railways Workers’ Union (K); Respondent: Railways and Allied Workers’ Union
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1814 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Interim Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Trade Union Disputes, Recognition Agreements, Interim Injunctions, Union Assets, Abuse of Process
- 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
Rift Valley Railways Workers’ Union (K)
Applicant
Railways and Allied Workers’ Union
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Interim Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Claimant Union is entitled to interim orders regarding the management and control of union assets pending determination of the main suit.
- 2 Whether the Claimant Union has established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of interim injunctions.
- 3 Whether the filing of multiple suits by the Claimant Union constitutes an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Claimant Union had not established a prima facie right to the interim orders sought, as required by the principles in Giela v. Cassman Brown. The court further noted that the dispute regarding recognition is already pending in consolidated suits (Cause Nos. 116 and 241 of 2013), and the present application amounted to a multiplicity of proceedings, constituting an abuse of court process. Consequently, the application for interim orders was dismissed, and the main suit was ordered to remain in abeyance pending the outcome of the recognition dispute.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for interim orders is dismissed.
- The main suit remains in abeyance pending the hearing and determination of the recognition dispute in Cause Nos. 116 and 241 of 2013.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 1814 OF 2013
RIFT VALLEY RAILWAYS WORKERS’ UNION (K) ………………... CLAIMANT
VERSUS
RAILWAYS AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION ………………… RESPONDENT
Mr. Isaac Opondo Munayi for Claimant/Applicant
Mr. Kaburu for Respondent
RULING
1. The Claimant Union filed a Memorandum of claim dated 11th November 2013 seeking the following orders;
that the Honourable Court order that the tenants of Rahu House continue depositing the respective rent amounts in the Claimant Union’s Account as instructed of them by the Claimant Union or;
that the Honourable Court orders that the tenants henceforth begin to deposit the rent amount to the court until this matter is heard and determined;
that the Honourable Court issue a declaratory order stopping any official of the Respondent Union to transact any business as pertains the Asset in question until the matter is heard and determined;
that the Accounts of the Respondent Union be frozen and an Independent Audit be carried out to ascertain the utilization of the funds from the workers asset whether same accords with the position as brought out in the Respondent’s constitution and as envisaged in the statute;
that a declaratory order that the Respondent has abdicated its core mandate and responsibility of protecting and articulating the interest of the members.
2. It should be noted from the out set that the parties are rival unions with competing interests with respect to the employees in the Railway Sector. The Respondent is the older of the union whereas the Claimant Union was registered on 21st December 2012.
3. The Claimant Union has no recognition agreement with the Rift Valley Railways, the employer and there is a pending dispute regarding the matter in Industrial Cause Nos. 116 and 241 of 2013 as consolidated.
4. The Claimant Union has simultaneously with the memorandum of claim filed an interlocutory application seeking interim orders to wit;
“c that the tenants continue to remit their rent from the workers property in the Workers Union Account as notified there in the respective notices issued to them or, be deposited in Court with effect from immediately, pending the determination of that suit.”
5. In terms of Section 12(1)(d)of the Industrial Court Act , this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes between Trade Unions.
6. The Claimant Union has not established a prima facieright on the facts of this case thus far to entitle it obtain the interim orders sought.
7. On the authority of Giela V. Casman Brown this application has failed the necessary threshold of establishing a prima facie case with a possibility of success and the Court needs not get to other pre-conditions of granting an interim injunction.
This issue ought to have been raised in Cause No. 116 and 241 of 2013 now consolidated.
8. It is the Court’s considered view that filing of multiplicity of suits by the Claimant Union amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and is inimical to economic use of the Court’s time.
The Court therefore dismisses this application and further orders that the main suit herein remains in abeyance pending the hearing and determination of the recognition dispute filed by the Claimant Union in suit No. 116 and 241 of 2013.
Costs in the cause.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 11th day of July, 2014.
MATHEWS N. NDUMA
PRINCIPAL JUDGE