KENYA BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION, TIMBER, FURNITURE & ALLIED INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES’ UNION v WANDIA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD (Cause 116 of 2000) [2001] KEELRC 6 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded four construction workers full redundancy benefits after their employer ignored the dispute and skipped the hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the four grievants (Ayub Mukhoka, Christopher Mbilo, Peter Matanyi and Fambian Mukovi) were wrongfully dismissed/laid off on 19th September 1997 without payment of redundancy benefits under the Regulation of Wages (Building Construction Industry) Order, Legal Notice No. 70 of 1994
- 2.What entitlements (notice, leave, service pay, compensation for loss of employment, tools allowance, underpayments and house allowance) are payable to each grievant
Key legal issues
#Wrongful termination without redundancy benefits under the applicable Wages Order
The grievants, laid off on 19th September 1997 allegedly for lack of work, were entitled to redundancy benefits in terms of the Regulation of Wages (Building Construction Industry) Order plus two months' salary as compensation for loss of employment, as recommended by the Minister's investigator.
The dispute was referred by the Minister for Labour under Section 8 of the Trade Disputes Act with the requisite statutory certificates. The Company, a construction undertaking bound by the Building Construction Industry Wages Order, filed no reply and did not appear, so the Union's uncontroverted memorandum — claiming notice, leave, service pay, compensation, tools allowance and, for one grievant, underpayments and house allowance — was allowed as prayed.
Ex parte hearing where respondent defaults
The Court proceeded ex parte and allowed the demand as prayed.
The Company's advocates were directed to file a reply statement and did not do so, nor did they appear at the hearing on 8th March 2001. In the absence of any answer to the Union's memorandum, the Court accepted the Union's claims in full and ordered payment within thirty days.
Legal principles established
#- Where a respondent in a referred trade dispute neither files a reply statement nor appears at the hearing, the claim may be allowed as prayed ex parte.
Court orders
#- 1.The demand is allowed as prayed for by the Union; the Company is ordered to pay the four grievants their entitlements as itemised (Ayub Mukokha Kshs.55,980.00; Peter Matanyi Kshs.55,980.00; Christopher Mbilo Kshs.37,247.00; Fabian Mukovi Kshs.52,440.00)
- 2.Payment to be made within thirty (30) days from the date of the award
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 8 of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234, Laws of Kenya (reference by the Minister for Labour), with statutory certificates under Section 14(9)(e) and (f)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Since the Company have neither filed their reply statement to the Union’s memorandum nor have they appeared to-day during the hearing of the dispute, the demand is allowed as prayed for hereinabove by the Union. I, therefore, order the Company to pay the same within thirty(30)days from the date of this award.
the Minister recommended that “the grievants be paid their redundancy benefits” in terms of the aforementioned Order; and in addition, “they should be paid 2 months salary as compensation for loss of employment”.
the Company are a construction concern or undertaking and are, therefore, bound by the Regulation of Wages (Building Construction Industry) Order, Legal Notice No.70 of 1994
Issues in the judgment
#Minor spelling inconsistencies in the judgment: the grievants are named 'Ayub Mukhoka' in the issue statement but 'Ayub Mukokha' in the award breakdown; 'Fambian Mukovi' in the issue statement but 'Fabian Mukovi' in the breakdown.
The award closes with 'Members- We concur.' but the members of the bench are not named anywhere in the judgment.
The counsel who argued the ex parte hearing is stated as 'Mr. Wambua' although the Union's advocate earlier appearing was named 'Mr. Julius Maina'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "KENYA BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION, TIMBER, FURNITURE & ALLIED INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES’ UNION v WANDIA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD (Cause 116 of 2000) [2001] KEELRC 6 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2001). Cause 116 of 2000. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2001/6/eng@2001-03-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.