[ad_1]
Hundreds of former employees of Unilever Plc, a multinational giant of British-Dutch consumer goods, were allowed to appeal a case in which they seek damages from from Kenyan to the company. Unilever Tea Kenya at the British Supreme Court
The tea workers had already suffered a blow after losing their appeal to the UK High Court and subsequently to the United Kingdom Court of Appeals. tea workers accuse the Kericho-based British company of "failing to fulfill its duty of care" to take "adequate measures to protect them from violence" following the disputed 2007 elections, which saw a wave of of violence sweep across Kenya.
More than 1,300 people were killed while many more were injured and there was extensive damage to the property.
The 218 claimants include the f ililies of 11 victims who were brutally killed in the violence and a large number of people who suffered serious violent attacks, including gang rape.
They allege that Unilever placed their workers in a position of "serious risk" because many of the workers came from tribes that were not local in the area, as well as specific targets of violence of the majority tribe in times of social unrest.
The plaintiffs also allege that the relevant expertise in crisis management resided in Unilever PLC. The experts were responsible for ensuring that proper procedures were in place at Unilever Tea Kenya and that people were trained.
Under English law, a duty of care exists where there is "proximity, predictability and fairness". impose such an obligation. "
The United Kingdom Court of Appeal, however, upheld a decision of the High Court that the tea producer" had no duty of care "in relation to the activities of its sub-divisions. Kenyan sailors.
The judges of the Court of Appeal further held that "if there is to be a trial, it will have to take place in Kenya."
They added that in In such circumstances, the Kenyan courts would be "better"
The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal on the ground that the proximity between plaintiffs and Unilever was "insufficient".
She stated that the plaintiffs were "far from being" able to demonstrate that they had a good arguable claim against Unilever.
Before the decision, four British human rights groups had put pressure on the multinational to badume its responsibilities and reconsider
The lobbyists included REDRESS, the African Coalition for Human Rights. Corporate Responsibility (ACCA), CORE and Kituo Cha Sheria.
In February of last year, the British High Court ruled in favor of U nilever and its Kenyan subsidiary.
