Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
IndustrialOtherCause 85 of 2006

Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers' Union v Karen Roses Ltd. (Cause 85 of 2006) (Employment and Labour) [2007] KEIC 8 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
31 January 2007
CCCharles P. Chemuttut
793 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

An Industrial Court in Kenya turned 49 flower farm workers' out-of-court settlement with their employer into a binding award, guaranteeing their terminal benefits.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This first-instance Industrial Court award arose from a dispute referred to the court by the Minister for Labour on 14th September 2006 under Section 8 of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234, together with statutory certificates under Section 14(9)(e) and (f). The issue in dispute was the unlawful dismissal of 49 employees of Karen Roses Ltd, whose names were listed in the award. Procedurally, the Union's Deputy General Secretary sought an adjournment to explore out-of-court settlement; when that failed, the parties were directed to file memoranda. Before the hearing date, however, on 2nd January 2007 the parties filed a memorandum of settlement dated 20th December 2006, signed by the Company's Human Resource Manager and the Union's Deputy General Secretary, witnessed by a Labour Relations Officer of the Agricultural Employers' Association and endorsed by FKE. Under the settlement, the dismissal of the grievants was to be reduced to normal termination, with each receiving one month's notice, a certificate of service, prorated house allowance, any overtime due, leave due, and payment for days worked. The court, per CP Chemuttut, J, found the terms of the settlement fair and reasonable and awarded as prayed for by the parties, marking the dispute as settled. No costs order was made and no authorities were cited. The award is thus a consent award rather than an adjudication on the merits of the alleged unlawful dismissals.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the dismissal of the 49 grievants was lawful, the issue in dispute being 'Unlawful dismissal of 49 employees'
  2. 2.Whether the terms of the memorandum of settlement dated 20th December 2006 are fair and reasonable and should be adopted as an award

Key legal issues

#
01

Adoption of an out-of-court settlement as a consent award

Holding

The court found the settlement terms fair and reasonable and awarded as prayed, marking the dispute as settled

Reasoning

The Minister for Labour referred the dispute under Section 8 of the Trade Disputes Act. After failed settlement attempts and directions to file memoranda, the parties filed a memorandum of settlement dated 20th December 2006 reducing the dismissals to normal termination with terminal benefits. The court, exercising its discretion, found the terms fair and reasonable and adopted them as its award.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A consent memorandum of settlement filed in the Industrial Court may be adopted as an award where the court finds its terms fair and reasonable

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The dismissal of the 49 grievants is reduced to normal termination
  2. 2.Each grievant to be paid and given: one month's notice; certificate of service; prorated house allowance; overtime, if any; leave due; and days worked
  3. 3.The dispute is marked as settled

The bench

#

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

CC
majority

Wrote the judgment

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)

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.

In my considered opinion, the terms of the settlement are fair and reasonable, and l award as prayed for by the parties and mark the dispute as settled.
p. 4Final orders / disposition
The Minister for Labour referred this dispute to the Court on 14th September, 2006, under powers conferred upon, or vested in, him by Section 8 of the Trade Disputes Act, Cap. 234, Laws of Kenya
p. 3Jurisdiction
the dismissal of the grievants be reduced to normal termination and each be paid and given the following terminal benefits
p. 3Terms of settlement

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The name of the presiding judge appears with inconsistent spellings in the coram ('CP CHEMUTTUT, J') and signature block ('CHARLES P. CHEMMUTTUT'), and the second numbered paragraph is styled '2.' while others are numbered '1.'

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers' Union v Karen Roses Ltd. (Cause 85 of 2006)  (Employment and Labour) [2007] KEIC 8 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2007). Cause 85 of 2006. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keic/2007/8/eng@2007-01-31

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