Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers v New Murarandia Farmers Cooperative Society (Cause E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2143 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court awarded a coffee cooperative's workers a 5% annual wage rise for 2020-2022 and ordered the employer to sign the CBA within 30 days.
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 is entitled to the prayer for General wage increase
- 2.Whether the respondent should be compelled to sign the proposed CBA for 2020-2022
- 3.Whether the claimant is entitled to the costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant was entitled to a general wage increase for the 2020-2022 CBA period
Yes. Inflation of 9.39 percent over the retiring CBA period eroded purchasing power, and under Article 41(2)(a) every employee has a right to fair remuneration; a 5 percent annual increase was awarded as reasonable and sustainable.
The court relied on the CPPMD economic report showing a Consumer Price Index of 9.39 percent for the retiring CBA period, translating to 4.7 percent compensation per year for inflation. The respondent withheld audited accounts and financial information despite court directions, so adverse inferences were drawn against it. Balancing compensation to employees against the employer's sustainability, and applying the Kenya Tea Growers principles of productivity, cost of living and ability to pay, the court settled on 5 percent per year as fair and affordable given the wage bill figures in the CPPMD report.
Whether the respondent should be compelled to sign the proposed CBA for 2020-2022
Yes, but on the court's terms: the parties to sign a CBA incorporating the 5 percent annual wage increase within 30 days of the judgment.
The court found the signing of the CBA long overdue and rejected the respondent's plea of financial inability, which was unsupported by any audit report. The respondent's non-cooperation with the CPPMD attracted adverse inference. The 7 percent offer made during negotiations was disregarded because the respondent's Secretary Manager who negotiated it was herself a union member, creating a conflict of interest. Judgment was therefore entered for the wage increase awarded, with the CBA to be signed incorporating that increase within 30 days.
Whether the claimant was entitled to the costs of the suit
No. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Although the claimant sought costs, the court, having entered judgment on the wage increase and the signing of the CBA, exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs, ordering each party to bear its own costs.
Legal principles established
#- A court faced with a question of wage increment ought to take into account productivity, cost of living and the ability to pay by the employer.
- Adverse inference may be drawn against a party that fails to avail information, such as audited accounts, to a court-appointed expert despite directions.
- A wage offer negotiated by a team labouring under a conflict of interest is invalid.
Court orders
#- 1.General wage increase of 5 percent for the year 2020/2021 and 5 percent for the year 2021/2022
- 2.The parties to sign a CBA incorporating the said wage increase within 30 days of the judgment
- 3.Each party to bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction as the employment and labour relations court over the dispute; Article 41(2)(a) of the Constitution invoked on fair remuneration
Relief refused
#General wage increase at 12 percent in the first year (2020/2021) and 12 percent in the second year (2021/2022)
The court found a lower award of 5 percent per year reasonable and sustainable based on the CPPMD report, considering inflation, productivity and ability to pay.
Costs
Each party to bear its own costs
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 enter judgment for the claimant against the respondent in the following terms: a. b. General wage increase of 5 percent for the year 2020/2021 and 5 percent for the year 2021/2022. The parties to sign a CBA incorporating the said wage increase within 30 days of this judgment. c. Each party to bear its own costs.
a court faced with a question of wage increment ought to take into account productivity, cost of living and the ability to pay by the employer.
Again, I make an adverse inference against the respondent that the reason for withholding the audited accounts was because the information was against its case.
I find merits in the respondent's objection and treat the offer of 7 percent wage increase per year to be invalid due to the conflict of interest on the part of the respondent's negotiating team.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment contains OCR/typographical errors (e.g. 'Cofiee' for 'Coffee', 'dfiered' for 'differed', 'afiordability', 'suficient', 'lay ofi').
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers v New Murarandia Farmers Cooperative Society (Cause E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2143 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2143/eng@2025-07-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.