Kenya Union of Hair & Beauty Salon Workers v Sana Industries Co. Limited [2018] KEELRC 49 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court threw out a union's claim against Sana Industries because it was vague, lacked evidence, and proved nothing about the affected workers.
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 pleadings are frivolous and abuse of the process of court?
- 2.Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought?
- 3.Who bears the costs of this claim?
Key legal issues
#Whether the pleadings are frivolous and an abuse of the process of court
Yes. The claim was muddled, failed to particularise the causes of action or the affected individuals, and did not disclose a genuine matter for litigation.
The court noted the claimant filed no written submissions and failed to particularise which provisions of the CBA were unimplemented, the dates of employment, or evidence of union membership of the named individuals. Relying on respondent's authorities on frivolous, vexatious and embarrassing pleadings and the purpose of pleadings, the court found the claim so muddled it could not stand as a genuine litigious exercise.
Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought
No. Having presented a claim wanting in form and substance, the claimant was disentitled to the relief sought.
The relief flowed from the finding on the first issue. Because the claim was dismissed as frivolous and abusive of court process, no reinstatement, restraint against harassment, or compliance order could issue. The court also noted the agency fee issue had been resolved by consent recorded in court, and any attempt to reopen it would be an abuse of process.
Legal principles established
#- A claim so wanting in form and substance that it does not disclose a genuine litigious exercise is frivolous and an abuse of the process of court and will be dismissed
- A union claiming on behalf of grievants must particularise the claims and prove employment and union membership of the individuals concerned
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed for lack of form and merit, being frivolous and an abuse of the process of court
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Industrial Court over trade disputes (Memorandum of Claim under the Labour Relations Act framework)
- Consolidated with
- Cause No. 2053 of 2013
Relief refused
#Order compelling the respondent to respect the Recognition Agreement and CBA and follow their procedures
Claim dismissed as frivolous and an abuse of process; the claimant was disentitled to relief
Reinstatement of the union representatives as machine attendants
Claim dismissed as frivolous and an abuse of process; no evidence substantiating the grievances
Order restraining harassment, intimidation or victimisation of representatives/workers
Claim dismissed as frivolous and an abuse of process
Costs of the suit
Each party ordered to bear own costs
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs of the claim
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.
I am therefore inclined to dismiss the claim for lack of form and merit. It is frivolous and an outright abuse of the process of court.
I am therefore inclined to dismiss the claim with orders that each party bears their cost of the same.
Having presented a claim so wanting in form and substance, she becomes disentitled to the relief sought.
There is no proof that the claimants are members of the union. No iota of evidence suggests on what basis the union has filed this claim on behalf of the Grievants.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment contains an incomplete sentence appearing to omit the word 'no': the disposition on the first issue reads 'This matter is so muddled up as to make any sense,' which on its face contradicts the holding that the matter is muddled; context indicates the word 'no' was intended
The coram is unusual: the judgment is dated and signed by Marete J but also records that it was 'Delivered and signed' by Maureen Onyango, Principal Judge, on the same date, without explanation
The names of the grievants are inconsistently spelled within the judgment (Kamande/Onsongo vs Ongong'o)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Hair & Beauty Salon Workers v Sana Industries Co. Limited [2018] KEELRC 49 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 1748 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/49/eng@2018-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.