Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedCauses Nos. 118 of 1999 & 59 of 2000 (consolidated)

KENYA UNION OF COMMERCIAL, FOOD & ALLIED WORKERS v BIRKING INDUSTRIAL SERVICES (BIS) LTD [2004] KEELRC 3 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
29 July 2004
CCCharles P. ChemmuttutMWM.A. WarrakahMJM.M. Jahazi
811 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A security company that ignored its workers' wage complaints and skipped court lost a Kshs. 22.5 million award to 102 former employees.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This Industrial Court award, delivered by Charles P. Chemmuttut, J, in Nairobi on 29 July 2004, determined two consolidated causes (Nos. 118 of 1999 and 59 of 2000) referred to the Court under the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234, following Notification of Dispute dated 9 December 1998 and a ministerial referral of 23 May 2000. The disputes concerned the alleged unlawful lock-out of 97 employees of Birking Industrial Services (BIS) Ltd, a guards' services contractor mainly serving Kenya Breweries Ltd, after they complained of underpayment of wages, and the dismissal of a further 5 employees on unsubstantiated charges - 102 grievants in all, for whom the Kenya Union of Commercial, Food & Allied Workers claimed terminal benefits totalling Kshs. 22,514,956.10. The disputes were consolidated as they involved the same parties and common questions of fact and law. After several adjournments, the hearing fixed for 22 and 26 September 2003 proceeded ex parte: counsel for the Union appeared but there was no appearance for the Company and no explanation was offered for its advocates' absence. Counsel for the Union submitted that the grievants had genuine grievances which the Company ignored, and relied on a detailed schedule of claim. Holding the claim unchallenged, the Court awarded the full Kshs. 22,514,956.10 as prayed and ordered accordingly. The Members of the Court were unable to render individual written opinions. No costs order was recorded and no authorities were cited.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Company unlawfully locked out 97 of the grievants following their complaint of underpayment of wages
  2. 2.Whether the dismissal of 5 grievants on unsubstantiated charges was lawful
  3. 3.What terminal benefits, if any, are payable to the 102 grievants

Key legal issues

#
01

Lawfulness of lock-out and dismissals

Holding

The lock-out of 97 grievants and dismissal of 5 on unsubstantiated charges were not justified; the claim stood unchallenged and was awarded in full

Reasoning

The Company, despite filing reply statements, failed to appear at the hearing and gave no reasons for its absence, so the matter proceeded ex parte. Counsel for the Union submitted that the grievants had genuine grievances about underpayment which the Company ignored, and that 5 employees were dismissed on unsubstantiated charges. With the claim uncontroverted, the court awarded the full claimed terminal benefits.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An unchallenged claim before the Industrial Court may be awarded as prayed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Award of terminal benefits to the grievants amounting to Kshs. 22,514,956.10 as per the detailed schedule of claim forming part of the award

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

CC
majority

Wrote the judgment

MW
majority
MJ
majority
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 14(9)(e) and (f) and Section 8 of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234 (referral by the Minister for Labour)
Consolidated with
Cause No. 59 of 2000

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 claim or demand by the Union, on behalf of the grievants, stands unchallenged, I award as prayed for hereinabove and order accordingly.
p. 3Award of unchallenged claim
On request for individual written opinion or advice in this case, the Members of the Court were unable to render the same.
p. 3No separate member opinions
The disputes were, however, consolidated as they involved the same parties and common questions of fact and law.
p. 3Consolidation

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (3)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "KENYA UNION OF COMMERCIAL, FOOD & ALLIED WORKERS v BIRKING INDUSTRIAL SERVICES (BIS) LTD [2004] KEELRC 3 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2004). Causes Nos. 118 of 1999 & 59 of 2000 (consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2004/3/eng@2004-07-29

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.