Union seeks to have James Finlays Managers committed to jail for contempt

A signpost to Finlays office headquarters in Kericho County

KERICHO: A union wants the general managers of a flower company jailed for allegedly ignoring court orders barring the eviction of staff from company houses.

Justice Njagi Marete granted the Kenya Plantations and Agricultural Workers' Union leave to institute contempt proceedings against Finlay Flowers and James Finlays Tea Kenya Ltd general managers Steve Scott and Simeon Hutchinson.

Lawyer Meshack Khisa went to court under a certificate of urgency on December 13 after the flower and tea companies allegedly defied court orders granted on December 9 barring them from sacking disgruntled employees and evicting them from company-owned houses.

Mr Marete had barred the company from victimising, terminating or evicting the affected employees for allegedly participating in a strike to press the companies to implement a 30 per cent pay increase they were awarded by the court mid this year.

"Despite the court orders being clear and equivocal, the respondents have contemptuously refused or neglected to obey the same and are not showing any willingness to respect the order of this honourable court despite the claimants' (union) effort to convince them to comply," Mr Khisa said.

Finlay Flowers Kenya Ltd, James Finlays Tea (Kenya) Ltd, Scott and Hutchinson are listed in the suit papers as respondents.

Khisa asked the court to fine the two companies Sh1 million each and penalise Scott and Hutchinson Sh500,000 each.

"In default the respondents should be committed to civil jail for six months with immediate effect. Finlays Flowers Kenya Ltd and James Finlays Tea Kenya Ltd should also be ordered to pay the cost of this claim at court interest rates," said the lawyer.

In the supporting affidavit, the union's organising secretary Henry Omasire said whereas the court issued interim orders restraining the respondents from acting against their employees, the companies had disregarded the court orders despite being served with the court papers.

"The third respondent (Scott) acting jointly with the fourth respondent (Hutchinson)... have barred and prohibited the employees from working," said Mr Omasire.