Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedELRC Cause No. E008 of 2020

Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers v Woolmatt Limited (Cause E008 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 1628 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 June 2024
HWHellen Wasilwa
1,621 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court refused to pause a labour dispute just because the employer had asked the National Labour Board to revoke the union's recognition agreement.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru disposes of a notice of motion dated 3rd July 2023 by the Respondent (employer) seeking a stay of proceedings pending hearing and determination of its application lodged with the National Labour Board on 27th June 2023 for revocation/termination of a recognition agreement dated 3rd November 2016 between it and the Claimant union. The employer, through the affidavit of its Director Mineshkumar Goshrani, argued that following a conciliator's recommendation the union had lost the simple majority required under section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act, representing only one employee out of 122, and later none at all, so CBA negotiations were no longer tenable and the NLB application had high chances of success. The Claimant union, through its National Organizing Secretary Mike O Oranga, opposed, maintaining that the recognition agreement remains valid until revoked by the NLB under section 54(8), that lodging a dispute at the NLB does not itself revoke the agreement, and alleging that the employer had intimidated, coerced and terminated union members to strip the union of membership. Both parties filed written submissions; the employer relied on Eliud Wanjohi Gwandaru v Samuel Waita & 11 Others [2021] eKLR on principles for stay of proceedings. Justice Hellen Wasilwa held that an application before the National Labour Board cannot bar the court's processes, noted the inordinate delay since the claim was filed in 2020, and found that a stay would infringe the Claimant's right to a fair hearing. The court rejected the application, directed the parties to proceed expeditiously to conclude the claim, and awarded costs to the Claimant.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the Applicant/Respondent is entitled to a stay of proceedings pending hearing and determination of its application before the National Labour Board for revocation of the recognition agreement
  2. 2.Who bears the costs of the application

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the pendency of an application before the National Labour Board for revocation of a recognition agreement warrants a stay of ELRC proceedings

Holding

No. The court declined to stay proceedings, holding that the application before the National Labour Board does not bar the court from proceeding and that a stay would further delay a claim already marked by inordinate delay.

Reasoning

The court noted the claim was filed in 2020 and that delay in prosecuting it had been inordinate. It held that the lodging of an application before the National Labour Board to revoke a recognition agreement cannot operate as a bar to the court's own processes, and that staying the claim would infringe the claimant's right to a fair hearing. It therefore exercised its discretion against a stay.

p. 4
02

Whether the Claimant's loss of union membership deprives the court of capacity to order conclusion of the CBA negotiations pending the NLB decision

Holding

Not decided; the court treated the validity of the recognition agreement as persisting until revoked and directed the parties to proceed expeditiously.

Reasoning

The applicant argued the claimant had lost the simple majority required under section 54(1) of the Labour Relations Act and had no members left, rendering CBA negotiations untenable. The respondent countered that a recognition agreement remains valid until revoked by the National Labour Board under section 54(8). The court did not determine this substantive question, choosing instead to allow the claim to proceed to conclusion.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Filing an application before the National Labour Board to revoke a recognition agreement is not a bar to the ELRC proceeding with its processes
  • Stay of proceedings is a discretionary remedy exercised sparingly in the interest of justice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application for stay of proceedings dismissed/rejected
  2. 2.Parties directed to proceed expeditiously and conclude the claim
  3. 3.Costs to the Respondent (claimant)

The bench

#

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

HW
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 7, 54(1) and 54(5) of the Labour Relations Act; Sections 3, 12, 13, 20 and 29(i) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act; Rules 17 and 38 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016

Relief refused

#

Stay of proceedings pending determination of the application before the National Labour Board

Filing an application before the National Labour Board cannot bar this Court's proceedings; a stay would delay the claim further and infringe the claimant's right to a fair hearing; delay in prosecuting the claim has been inordinate

p. 4

Costs

Costs to the Respondents (the Claimant before the Court).

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 fact of filing an application before the National Labour Board to revoke a recognition cannot be a bar to this court’s proceedings with its processes.
p. 4Parallel proceedings before the National Labour Board
To stay the case’s conclusion will delay this claim further and infringe the Claimant’s right to fair hearing.
p. 4Right to fair hearing versus stay of proceedings
I exercise my discretion in the circumstances and reject the application to stay the proceedings and direct the parties to proceed expeditiously and conclude this claim. Costs to the Respondents.
p. 4Final orders / disposition

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The ruling repeatedly uses inconsistent party designations, describing the stay applicant variously as Respondent/Applicant and the union as Claimant/Respondent, and the final costs order 'Costs to the Respondents' appears to refer to the Claimant who opposed the stay, given the earlier prayer for costs by the Applicant

minor

Typographical errors in dates of the prior court order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers v Woolmatt Limited (Cause E008 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 1628 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELRC Cause No. E008 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1628/eng@2024-06-27

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