SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Tailors and Textile Workers Union v African Cotton Industries [2015] KEELRC 372 (KLR)

[2015] KEELRC 372 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
372
Citation
[2015] KEELRC 372 (KLR)
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeLabor DisputePostureAppeal from a conciliation settlementCoramONESMUS MAKAU
The court will not interfere with the settlement agreement dated 18.6.2014 and awards the claimant a sum of Ksh 1,488,266.85 to be shared as summarized above.

Facts

The claimant union brought a suit on behalf of 22 members who were allegedly unlawfully terminated by the respondent in June 2014. The dispute was settled through a conciliation agreement signed on June 18, 2014.

Issues

  • whether the court should interfere with the settlement agreement
  • what is the correct amount of terminal dues based on the agreement

Reasoning

The court found the conciliation process voluntary and in good faith, and there was no compelling reason to interfere with the settlement agreement.

Outcome

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • The claimant will have costs of the suit
  • Money deposited by the respondent for notice and severance pay shall be released to the claimant
  • Money deposited for leave and salary shall also be released to the claimant

Remedies

  • Payment of Ksh 1,488,266.85 to the claimant

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Labour Relations Act (LRA)
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case