Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Ashut Engineers Limited (Plastic Division) [2022] KEELRC 333 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to force Mabati Rolling Mills to deposit Ksh.50 million, ruling that collective bargaining disputes must be decided at a full hearing, not on interim applications.
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 respondent should be ordered to deposit Ksh.50,000,000 plus 15% of redundancy benefits recommended in the CPMU report as security
- 2.Whether the interim orders sought in the application dated 8th December, 2020 should issue pending the full hearing of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether security of Ksh.50 million could be ordered at an interlocutory stage
The application was dismissed; the deposit sought would pre-empt the trial determination of the economic dispute
The claim pegged the deposit on the CPMU report and a redundancy notice. The court found the dispute before it concerns CBA review, while redundancy is separately addressed under Cause No.E013 of 2022. Since the CPMU recommendations are contested and depend on audited financial statements and wage bill analysis, requiring a deposit would amount to deciding the matter before full hearing.
Effect of the CPMU report dated 21st September, 2020
The report's recommendations are contested and must be interrogated at a full hearing with the audited accounts and wage bill
The court directed the CPMU to file a report, which recommended increments including house allowance, leave travelling allowance and general wage increases, resulting in arrears of about Ksh.50 million. The respondent contested the report for failing to consider its audited financial reports and questionnaire. The court held the report was meant only to aid the parties and is not binding.
Whether the redundancy dispute overlaps with the CBA review claim
The redundancy is a separate issue dealt with under Cause No.E013 of 2022 and does not support the deposit order in this cause
The claimant sought security because a redundancy affecting 801 members was declared. The court found the issue in dispute in this suit is refusal to review the CBA, unrelated to redundancy, which is addressed in a separate cause not disputed by the claimant. The deposit application therefore rested on matters outside this suit's dispute.
Legal principles established
#- An economic dispute concerning CBA review and interim security deposits must be determined after a full hearing on the merits
- A CPMU report is not binding on the court; it only aids the parties and its recommendations must be tested at trial
Court orders
#- 1.Application dated 8th December, 2020 is dismissed
- 2.The court shall hear the suit on the merits
- 3.Costs shall abide the outcome 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 Court jurisdiction over the CBA review dispute (economic dispute) referred to it
Relief refused
#Deposit of Ksh.50,000,000 plus 15% of redundancy benefits as security
The deposit would amount to determining the economic dispute before a full hearing; the redundancy issue is separate and the subject of another cause
Costs
Costs shall abide the outcome of the suit
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.
Application dated 8th December, 2020 is hereby dismissed. The court shall hear the suit on the merits. Costs shall abide the outcome of the suit.
to require a deposit of Ksh.50 million will be to make a determination of the matter before full hearing
this being an economic dispute, it is only fair that the parties be heard on the matter for the court to be able to address all the issues on the merits
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment contains an internal date contradiction regarding the CPMU report
The opening of the judgment leaves order (a) blank/omitted and the deponent name is inconsistently rendered (Amit Shah vs Mr Ashut)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Ashut Engineers Limited (Plastic Division) [2022] KEELRC 333 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Application dated 8th December, 2020 in ELRC Cause (memorandum of claim dated 15th May, 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/333/eng@2022-03-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.