Kenya Concrete, Structural, Ceramic Tiles, Wood Plys and Interior Designs Workers Union v Comply Industries Limited (Cause E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1578 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 Claimant Union has locus standi to present the Claim on behalf of the 15 Employees
- 2.Whether the Employees' contracts were terminated fairly on account of redundancy
- 3.Whether the Employees merit the prayers sought
Key legal issues
#Locus standi of the Claimant Union
The Claimant Union has capacity to file and prosecute the Claim on behalf of its members, as already determined in an unappealed Ruling of 20th September 2024
A prior Ruling of the same Court, delivered at the Respondent's own invitation, affirmed the Union's capacity to represent the 15 Employees. The Respondent did not appeal that Ruling, so continuing to contest locus standi in closing submissions was pointless. The issue stood resolved preliminarily and the court declined to revisit it.
Fairness of the redundancy terminations
The redundancies were genuine; the Employees left employment on account of a bona fide redundancy arising from the Government ban on logging
Both parties did not dispute the genuineness of the redundancy situation. The Respondent's timber business was adversely affected by the logging ban. The dispute went through conciliation, where the Conciliator recommended payment of notice, severance and pending leave, mirroring the Respondent's own computations. The delay in settlement was attributed to the Claimant Union's officials disrupting the conciliation process over the unrelated recognition grievance.
Terminal dues payable
Judgment entered as admitted: notice, severance and pending annual leave per the Respondent's computations for 14 Employees, and per the Conciliator's recommendations for George Oluoch Omiena
The Respondent's Statement of Response conceded terminal dues and contained computations. The Claimant offered no alternative computation and pleaded no specific figures. The Conciliator had recommended identical heads for Omiena, whose dispute was reported separately. The court therefore adopted the admitted computations rather than the broader prayers for unfair termination compensation and damages.
Legal principles established
#- A concession in a Statement of Response can found judgment without full trial
- An unappealed interlocutory ruling affirming a union's capacity to sue concludes the locus standi issue
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Claimant as admitted by the Respondent in the Statement of Response dated 18th March 2022
- 2.Declaration that the Employees left employment on account of a genuine redundancy situation
- 3.Respondent to pay the 14 Employees terminal benefits as computed in the Statement of Response, comprising notice, severance and pending annual leave
- 4.George Oluoch Omiena to be paid terminal benefits as recommended by the Conciliator, comprising notice, severance and pending annual leave days
- 5.No order on costs
- 6.Amounts to be paid within 14 days of the Judgment, in default interest to accrue at court rate from the date of Judgment till payment in full
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Labour Relations Act (dispute reported to and through conciliation at the Labour Office)
Relief refused
#Reinstatement of the 15 Employees
The Employees left on genuine redundancy and the Respondent admitted terminal dues; reinstatement was not granted, judgment being on admitted computation
Compensation for unfair termination and damages for suffering
Redundancy was genuine and undisputed; no evidence of specific alternative figures pleaded by the Claimant
Costs of the Claim
Court made no order on costs
Costs
No order on the costs (each party to bear its own costs); payment of terminal benefits within 14 days, failing which interest at court rate from date of Judgment till payment in full
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.
It is ordered: a. Judgment is entered for the Claimant as admitted by the Respondent in the Statement of Response dated 18th March 2022.
The Respondent shall pay to the 14 Employees’ terminal benefits as computed in the Statement of Response dated 18th March 2022, comprising notice, severance and pending annual leave.
George Oluoch Omiena, the 15th Employee shall similarly be paid terminal benefits as recommended by the Conciliator, comprising notice, severance and pending annual leave days.
No order on the costs.
The said amounts to be paid to the Employees within 14 days of this Judgment, in default, interest to accrue at court rate, from the date of Judgment till payment in full.
It is declared that the Employees left employment on account of a genuine redundancy situation.
Issues in the judgment
#Statement of Response dated 18th March 2022 predates the Statement of Claim dated 29th June 2022, an internal chronological inconsistency in the judgment
Judgment inconsistently names the same Employee as George Omiena and George Oluoch Omiena
Case number registration inconsistent across the record; court confirmed E001 of 2024 as correct
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Concrete, Structural, Ceramic Tiles, Wood Plys and Interior Designs Workers Union v Comply Industries Limited (Cause E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1578 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No. E001 of 2024 (formerly Cause No. E457 of 2022, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1578/eng@2025-05-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.