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

THOMAS M. NGUTI & 6 OTHERS v KENYA RAILWAYS CORPORATION [2003] KEHC 648 (KLR)

[2003] KEHC 648 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
648
Citation
[2003] KEHC 648 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureInterlocutory ApplicationCoramA.I Hayanga
Holding

Granting the mandatory injunction to implement the Industrial Court award, payment of salary arrears, and prohibiting future re-engagement of retired locomotive drivers.

Facts

Plaintiffs are locomotive drivers who filed a Trade Disputes Cause in Industrial Court of Kenya in 1995. The Industrial Court awarded a 25% salary increment and a separate scheme for locomotive drivers. The plaintiffs demanded implementation of the award, but the defendant claimed the increase was implemented through other agreements.

Issues

  1. Implementation of the Industrial Court award
  2. Payment of salary arrears
  3. Prohibiting re-engagement of retired locomotive drivers

Reasoning

The court found that the defendant did not implement the award as required by the Industrial Court, and the plaintiffs' rights were not clearly protected.

Outcome

Plaintiffs' prayers granted.

Orders

  • Mandatory injunction to implement the Industrial Court award
  • Payment of salary arrears
  • Prohibiting future re-engagement of retired locomotive drivers

Remedies

  • Mandatory injunction
  • Payment of salary arrears
  • Prohibiting re-engagement of retired locomotive drivers

Authorities cited

Legislation (4)
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Trade Disputes Act
  • Railways Corporation Act
  • Industrial Court Act
Cases cited (1)
  • Saeed R. Cocker, The Kenyan Industrial Court
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case