Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
IndustrialPartially AllowedCause 50 of 2001· [2003] KEIC 26 (KLR)

Bakery, Confectionery, Manufacturing, & Allied Workers’ Union v Deepa Industries Ltd (Cause 50 of 2001) (Employment and Labour) [2003] KEIC 26 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya (Employment and Labour)
11 June 2003
CCCharles P. ChemuttutJKJ.M. KilonzoAKA.K. Kerich
1,385 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 Industrial Court ruled the workers' redundancy was caused by real power and water shortages, not anti-union motives, and ordered their re-employment without back pay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This Industrial Court award (Cause 50 of 2001) determined a trade dispute reported by the Bakery, Confectionery, Manufacturing & Allied Workers' Union against Deepa Industries Ltd concerning the alleged wrongful dismissal or redundancy of 22 employees in 2000. The matter came before the Court under certificates issued by the Labour Commissioner and the Minister for Labour under sections 14(9)(e) and (f) of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234. The Union called one witness; the Company called none. It was established at the hearing that one grievant had died and three were management staff still in employment, leaving 18 affected grievants. The Union's case was that the redundancy was intended to reduce the Union's numerical strength and curb its activities, and sought unconditional reinstatement with continuity of service and full benefits. The Company asserted that the redundancy resulted from a serious shortage and rationing of power and water, deposited the grievants' dues with the Labour Officer, and offered staggered fresh employment. Settlement negotiations on 4 October 2002 failed to bridge the parties' positions. The Court found the redundancy was caused by forced circumstances beyond the Company's control and rejected the anti-union motive allegation as untrue. It declined retrospective re-employment or continuity of service, treating the absence as a break in service and leave without pay, but ordered re-employment of all 18 grievants forthwith, release of their deposited dues, and payment of the deceased grievant's terminal dues to her next of kin. Both members concurred.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the redundancy was actuated by ulterior motives of weakening the Union

Holding

The Court rejected the Union's allegation that the redundancy targeted the Union's numerical strength as untrue and false

Reasoning

The evidence showed the grievants were declared redundant due to a serious shortage and rationing of power and water, reasons beyond the Company's control. No arbitrary or whimsical action by management was demonstrated. The Company's bona fides were evidenced by its willingness to re-employ the grievants; had it been vindictive it would not have offered re-employment.

p. 3
02

Whether re-employment should have retrospective effect and continuity of service

Holding

Re-employment is to be prospective; the period of absence is a break in service and leave without pay

Reasoning

Because the redundancy flowed from forced circumstances beyond the Company's control and no arbitrary conduct was shown, the Court found no basis for retrospective re-employment or continuity of service. The grievants' dues deposited with the Labour Officer were to be collected, and re-employment to proceed forthwith notwithstanding the lapse of the original staggered dates.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A redundancy attributable to genuine operational causes beyond the employer's control is not wrongful and does not justify retrospective re-employment or continuity of service

Court orders

#
  1. 1.That the grievants should collect their dues which were deposited with the Labour Officer, Industrial Area, Nairobi, to their credit
  2. 2.That the period of their absence on account of redundancy be treated as a break in service and leave without pay
  3. 3.That all the 18 grievants be re-employed forthwith on presenting themselves to the Company
  4. 4.That the late Ms. Pauline Mwikali Munyeke’s terminal dues be paid or released to her legal representative or next of kin
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 14(9)(e) and (f) of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234 (statutory certificates from the Labour Commissioner and the Minister for Labour)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (25)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Bakery, Confectionery, Manufacturing, & Allied Workers’ Union v Deepa Industries Ltd (Cause 50 of 2001)  (Employment and Labour) [2003] KEIC 26 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2003). Cause 50 of 2001. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keic/2003/26/eng@2003-06-11

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