Kenya Tea Growers Association v Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Works Union [2020] KEELRC 1358 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled dismissed employees lose their right to company housing, because housing benefits end when employment ends.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether conservatory orders should issue restraining the Respondents from evicting dismissed employees from company houses pending hearing of the main suit
- 2.Whether the application should be consolidated with Nairobi ELRC No 1578 of 2017
- 3.Who should bear costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether conservatory orders restraining eviction could issue notwithstanding the Court of Appeal judgment setting aside reinstatement
The orders sought were not tenable because the employees stand dismissed and the ELRC cannot reverse the Court of Appeal's finding
The court noted the employees still occupying company houses had been dismissed, and that the dismissal was confirmed by the Court of Appeal's order of 20th December 2018 setting aside the interlocutory reinstatement orders of 17th January 2018. The effect of that decision was that the union members stand dismissed, and this Court cannot reverse that finding. With no subsisting employment relationship, continued occupation of company houses could not be sustained by interim relief.
Whether granting the conservatory orders would amount to reinstatement contrary to the Court of Appeal judgment
Effectively yes - the court declined to grant orders that would achieve reinstatement-like occupation of company housing
The 1st Respondent contended that granting the orders would be tantamount to reinstatement of the employees contrary to the Court of Appeal judgment, and would interfere with managerial prerogative. The court, examining all averments, agreed that with dismissal confirmed, the members were no longer employees and their continued occupation of company housing could not be countenanced pending the main suit.
Whether the matter should proceed to hearing of the main claim
Yes, the two files having been consolidated, the main claim is to proceed to hearing
Although the interim application failed, the court directed that the substantive dispute over the dismissals be determined at the full hearing of the main claim, the two files having already been consolidated. The interim dismissal therefore does not determine the lawfulness of the dismissals, which remains pending in the consolidated suit.
Legal principles established
#- Once the Court of Appeal sets aside reinstatement orders, the employment relationship is severed and dismissed employees cannot continue occupying company houses
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 23rd January, 2019 is dismissed
- 2.The matter to proceed with the hearing of the main claim, the two files having been consolidated
- 3.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 and Section 17 of the Employment & Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules
- Consolidated with
- Nairobi ELRC No 1578 of 2017 between Kenya Tea Growers Association vs Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union
Relief refused
#Conservatory order restraining eviction of affected employees from company quarters
The employees stand dismissed following the Court of Appeal judgment of 20th December 2018, severing the employment relationship, and this Court cannot reverse that finding
Certification as urgent and ex-parte hearing
Determined inter partes; the application was dismissed
Costs of the application to the applicant
Costs were ordered to be in the cause
Costs
Costs in the cause
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.
The effect of the Court of Appeal’s decision is that the union members stand dismissed and this Court cannot reverse that finding.
The members therefore not being employees of the Respondent cannot continue occupying company houses as there is no employment relationship between them and the Respondent the same having been severed after the dismissal.
This Court therefore finds that the orders sought are not tenable. The application is therefore dismissed accordingly.
This matter can therefore proceed with the hearing of the main claim, the two files having been consolidated accordingly.
Costs in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The full names of the 1st and 2nd Respondents and the applicant's own case number are not stated in the judgment extract; parties are identified only through the pleadings described
Internal inconsistency in the pleaded cause numbers - the consolidated suit is referred to as both ELRC No 1578 of 2017 and ELR No. 1578, 1576 and 1579 all of 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Tea Growers Association v Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Works Union [2020] KEELRC 1358 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated on the face of the judgment (interlocutory Notice of Motion dated 23rd January, 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1358/eng@2020-02-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.