[2016] KEELRC 1603 (KLR)

[2016] KEELRC 1603 (KLR)

The court found that the Union's application was incoherent and lacked a legal basis, as the Grievants' employment had already been terminated prior to the application. There was no demonstrated nexus between the remedies sought in the main claim (unfair termination and underpayment) and the interlocutory motion...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELRC 1603 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Transport Workers Union (Kenya); Respondent: Kimilili Hauliers Co. Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 396 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Motion for Stay and Injunctive Relief
Outcome
motion dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Injunctive Relief, Terminal Benefits, Union Representation
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Injunctive Relief Terminal Benefits Union Representation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Transport Workers Union (Kenya)

Applicant

Kimilili Hauliers Co. Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Motion for Stay and Injunctive Relief

  1. 1 Whether the applicant Union established a legal basis for injunctive relief restraining the respondent from closing or changing ownership of the company.
  2. 2 Whether there is a nexus between the remedies sought in the Memorandum of Claim and those in the interlocutory motion.
  3. 3 Whether the standard for grant of injunction as set out in Giella v Cassman Brown was met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Union's application was incoherent and lacked a legal basis, as the Grievants' employment had already been terminated prior to the application. There was no demonstrated nexus between the remedies sought in the main claim (unfair termination and underpayment) and the interlocutory motion (restraining closure or change of ownership). The Union failed to meet the established threshold for injunctive relief as articulated in Giella v Cassman Brown, having neither demonstrated a prima facie case nor irreparable harm. Furthermore, the Union improperly sought orders against a party not joined to the proceedings. Consequently, the motion was dismissed with costs to the...

Court Disposition

motion dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The motion dated 9 December 2015 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
  • The parties are to conclude pretrial procedures for the main cause to be fixed for hearing.