africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • Ghana
  • Kenya
  • Nigeria
  • South Africa
  • Tanzania
  • Uganda

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[2011] KEIC 31Kenya

Kenya Plantation And Agricultural Workers Union & another v KK Promote Farm & another (Cause 201 of 2009) [2011] KEIC 31 (KLR) (Employment and Labour) (11 May 2011) (Award)

Industrial Court of Kenya

Judgment

Kenya Plantation And Agricultural Workers Union & another v KK Promote Farm & another (Cause 201 of 2009) [2011] KEIC 31 (KLR) (Employment and Labour) (11 May 2011) (Award) KENYA PLANTATION AND AGRICULTURAL WORKERS UNION v K.K. PROMOTE FARM [2011] eKLR Neutral citation: [2011] KEIC 31 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Industrial Court at Nairobi Employment and Labour Cause 201 of 2009 SM Madzayo, J, MA Warrakah & PM Osero, Members May 11, 2011 Between Kenya Plantation And Agricultural Workers Union 1st Claimant Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union 2nd Claimant and KK Promote Farm 1st Respondent K.K. Promote Farm 2nd Respondent Award “Issue in Dispute:-Refusal by the Management to pay Salary Arrears to Mr. Peter Kariuki Githua, Mr. Elisha Manyenga Wako, Mr. Gideon Munala Atorwa andMr. David Kuria Njoki.”Miss Dalphine Munde, appeared for the Claimants. 1.Mr. G. Maina, Advocate from the firm of Maina Makome and Company, appeared for the Respondent. 2.The Claimant filed their Memorandum of Claim on 10th June, 2009. The Respondent filed their Respondent’s Memorandum on 26th June, 2009. The matter was fixed for hearing on 21st July, 2009. 3.On this occasion, Miss Dalphine Munde appeared for the Claimant/Union and Mr. G. Maina represented the Respondent. 4.Miss Munde for the Claimant strongly submitted that payment of gratuity as per Clause 31(a) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement was to be earned as and when an employee who resigns or her/his services are terminated on completion of ten (10) years of continuous and meritorious service with the company would be entitled to 21 days pay for each year of completed service. 5.Miss Munde argued that the four (4) grievants namely; Mr. Peter Kariuki Githua, Elisha Mayenga Wako, Gedion Munala Atorwa and David Kuria Njoki were unfairly excluded from enjoying the salary arrears for October to December, 1999 because they were not Union Members. 6.In reply, Mr. Maina strongly opposed the demand. He submitted that Mr. Gedion M. Atorwa was not in employment as at 27th April 2000 when the agreement was entered into. The agreement covered only the employees who were in employment at present time. But with regards to the other three (3) grievants, they were not unionisable. He further, stated 7.that the three (3) grievants appeared and received their dues and did sign a discharge acknowledging that they had no further claim against the Respondent. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent prayed that the Claim be dismissed. 8.The Court note that the parties have a valid Recognition Agreement and have also entered into several collective bargaining agreements which regulate the terms and conditions of service of the employees. This dispute found its way to Court when the Collective Bargaining Agreement covering the period between 1st January, 1998 to 31st December, 1999 was signed but the parties could not agree on some issues. The main disagreement was generated by Clause 31(a) regarding payment of gratuity and C. Appendix B regarding the daily rates with effect from 1st January, 1998. 9.The Court has perused the file and considered both submissions. First, the Court note that the Claim as framed and argued is fatally defective. The Claimant failed and or neglected to provide substantive information and or documentation to support the authenticity of their demands. Further, three of the grievants are reported to have received the payment of their final dues, a fact that was not disputed by the Claimant. 10.In the Court’s opine, the grievants are personalities trying to make a futile attempt to reap from a Collective Bargaining Agreement they did not support and or were not members. 11.In the circumstances, the Court find that the demand made by the Claimants has no basis and is, therefore, dismissed for lack of merit.Costs in cause.Ordered accordingly. **DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 11 TH DAY OF MAY, 2011.****STEWART M. MADZAYO****JUDGE****P.M OSERO** **MEMBER****M.A. WARRAKAH****MEMBER**

Similar Cases

Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Kilifi Plantation Limited (Cause 121 of 2012) [2013] KEIC 520 (KLR) (12 April 2013)
[2013] KEIC 520Industrial Court of Kenya83% similar
Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Hedge Farm Limited (Cause 61 of 2012) [2013] KEIC 519 (KLR) (22 February 2013)
[2013] KEIC 519Industrial Court of Kenya81% similar
Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers' Union v Karen Roses Ltd. (Cause 85 of 2006) [2007] KEIC 8 (KLR) (Employment and Labour) (31 January 2007) (Award)
[2007] KEIC 8Industrial Court of Kenya81% similar
Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Unilever Tea (K) Ltd (Cause 923 of 2012) [2012] KEIC 25 (KLR) (Employment and Labour) (25 September 2012) (Ruling)
[2012] KEIC 25Industrial Court of Kenya80% similar
Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers’ Union v Kenya Tea Packers Ltd (Cause 32 of 2001) [2001] KEIC 8 (KLR) (6 November 2001) (Award)
[2001] KEIC 8Industrial Court of Kenya80% similar

Discussion