Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
IndustrialPartially AllowedCause 84 of 2000· [2003] KEIC 25 (KLR)

Kenya Union Of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals & Allied Workers v African Tours & Hotels Ltd. (In Receivership) (Cause 84 of 2000) (Employment and Labour) [2003] KEIC 25 (KLR)

Industrial Court at Nairobi
5 November 2003
2,575 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court ruled that a company that runs a leased hotel and pays its workers is their true employer and must pay their terminal benefits, even in receivership.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Minister for Labour referred this dispute to the Industrial Court under Section 8 of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234. The issues framed were the alleged lock-out of union members, violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement Clauses II and V, and management's refusal to meet union officials. At the hearing the Union withdrew issues 2 and 3, leaving only the lock-out issue; the matter proceeded ex parte as AT&H gave no reason for its counsel's non-appearance. The dispute arose when Milimani Hotel, leased by Milimani Hotels Ltd to AT&H from 1 July 1986, reverted to the lessor after AT&H was placed under receivership on 29 June 1998; employees who reported to the Receiver/Manager were allegedly locked out. The Union claimed terminal benefits of Kshs.9,597,028. AT&H in its written statement denied the lock-out, asserted the grievants were Milimani Hotel Ltd's employees, and admitted liability only for the tenancy period capped at Kshs.4,000 per grievant. Applying the control test from Short v Henderson Ltd and the Privy Council authority in Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffith, and following Workers' Union v M.B. Hotel United, Karachi, the Court found AT&H had administrative control over the grievants, paid their wages, and could dismiss or reinstate them. It held the grievants were AT&H's employees for the lease period and awarded their outstanding terminal benefits per the attached schedule. The receivership/liquidation argument, raised for the first time, was rejected as a basis of decision. Both members supported the decision.

Key legal issues

#
01

Identity of the employer of the grievants following termination of the lease and AT&H's receivership

Holding

The grievants were employees of AT&H for the period the lease subsisted, and AT&H is liable to pay their outstanding terminal benefits.

Reasoning

Applying the four indicia of a contract of employment from Lord Thankerton in Short v Henderson Ltd, the court found AT&H had administrative control over the grievants, paid their wages and salaries, granted leave, and had power to dismiss and reinstate them. The lease clause 4(r) made the lessee liable for dues accruing during the demised term. Consequently AT&H, as the bona fide employer, was saddled with liability for terminal benefits for the lease period.

p. 10
02

Effect of AT&H's receivership/liquidation on the award

Holding

The receivership/liquidation point, raised for the first time before the Court, could not be made the basis of the decision, and the award remains implementable.

Reasoning

The Court held that liquidation was a ground pressed for the first time at the hearing and could not found the decision. The grievants' position on payment of terminal benefits would be no better or worse than other employees similarly affected by any liquidation of AT&H, so the award was capable of implementation notwithstanding the receivership.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • The prima facie test for determining an employer-employee relationship is the employer's right to supervise and control the manner in which the work is done.
  • Where a lessee engages employees for work he has taken, the lessor has no control or supervision over them and the employees are the employees of the lessee alone.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Issues Nos. 2 and 3 dismissed as withdrawn on the Union's application
  2. 2.AT&H declared liable to pay all the outstanding terminal benefits due and owing to the 124 grievants for the period the lease subsisted, as shown in the attached schedule
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 8 of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234 (reference by the Minister for Labour), with statutory certificates under Section 14(9)(e) and (f)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union Of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals & Allied Workers v African Tours & Hotels Ltd. (In Receivership) (Cause 84 of 2000)  (Employment and Labour) [2003] KEIC 25 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2003). Cause 84 of 2000. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keic/2003/25/eng@2003-11-05

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