Vuko v Kilumo & 2 others (The Registered Officials of Prisons Kiwandani Residential Upgrading CBO) (Civil Appeal 65 of 2015) [2016] KECA 541 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that employment disputes belong in the Employment and Labour Relations Court, striking down a High Court case heard in the wrong forum.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the subordinate court and the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain a judicial review application concerning an employment and labour relations dispute reserved for the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
The subordinate court and the High Court lacked jurisdiction. The dispute, involving an employment relationship and a collective agreement, fell exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court as established under Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act.
The Court held that the substance of the dispute, as disclosed by the pleadings and the evidence, was an industrial relations dispute between an employer and its former employee. Such disputes were reserved exclusively for the Employment and Labour Relations Court by Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. Both the subordinate court and the High Court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the judicial review application, and any orders made in the absence of jurisdiction were nullities. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction must be resolved at the threshold before merit issues such as limitation of time are addressed.
Whether the issue of jurisdiction must be determined before other issues, including limitation of time, are addressed.
Yes. Where the jurisdiction of a court is challenged, the jurisdictional issue must be resolved first, since a court without jurisdiction cannot make any valid orders.
The Court invoked the established principle that jurisdiction is everything; without it, a court has no power to take any further step in the proceedings. Accordingly, it was improper for the High Court to engage with the merits, including the limitation issue raised by the State, before satisfying itself that it had jurisdiction over the dispute. The determination of jurisdiction was a threshold matter that preceded all other questions, including those of limitation and abuse of process raised by the Respondent.
Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the High Court's decision in the judicial review application.
Yes. The appeal was essentially about jurisdiction, and it raised a substantive question warranting the Court's determination; the Court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain and determine the appeal.
The Court rejected the Respondent's characterization of the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. It held that the central question in the appeal was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the judicial review application, which was a substantive question properly before the Court of Appeal. The Court also noted that the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in civil matters is stipulated by Section 71A of the Civil Procedure Act as read with Article 164(3) of the Constitution, and that the issues raised went to the competence of the proceedings below.
Whether the High Court correctly declined to strike out the judicial review application on limitation grounds.
Having found that both the subordinate court and the High Court lacked jurisdiction, the limitation question did not arise for determination; the entire proceedings were a nullity.
The Court held that since the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in the first place, the question whether the judicial review application was filed within the statutory limitation period did not arise. Orders made by a court lacking jurisdiction are nullities, and the proper course was to strike out the Notice of Motion. The limitation argument, which had been accepted by the High Court as a reason for not striking out the application, could not sustain the proceedings.
Legal principles established
#- Where legislation establishes a specialized court with exclusive jurisdiction over a class of disputes, that jurisdiction cannot be usurped by the High Court; the issue of jurisdiction must be resolved at the threshold, as it goes to the competence of the court to entertain the dispute at all.
- A court's jurisdiction is determined by the Constitution and by legislation; where a statute creates a specialized forum with exclusive jurisdiction, parties must ventilate their dispute in that forum.
- Section 12 of the Labour Relations Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Employment and Labour Relations Court over employment and labour relations disputes, including those concerning collective agreements.
- Where a court lacks jurisdiction over a matter, the proceedings are a nullity ab initio and any orders made are of no legal effect.
- Where a party challenges the jurisdiction of a court, the issue of jurisdiction must be determined first before any other issues, including limitation of time, are addressed.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal was allowed.
- 2.The ruling and orders of the High Court (M. A. Ang'awa, J.) dated 18th October 2013 were set aside in their entirety and substituted with an order striking out the Notice of Motion dated 5th September 2011 with costs to the Appellants.
- 3.The 1st Appellant's costs of the subordinate court (judicial review proceedings) were to be taxed and paid to it by the Respondent.
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Judicial Review No. 51 of 2011
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 164(3) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- One Hundred and Two Peponi Road LLP & another v National Environment Management Authority & 2 others (Civil Appeal E326 of 2021) [2026] KECA 1380 (KLR)[2026] KECA 1380 (KLR)10 Jul 2026
- One Hundred and Two Peponi Road LLP & another v National Environment Management Authority & 2 others (Civil Appeal E326 of 2021) [2026] KECA 1380 (KLR)[2026] KECA 1380 (KLR)10 Jul 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Vuko v Kilumo & 2 others (The Registered Officials of Prisons Kiwandani Residential Upgrading CBO) (Civil Appeal 65 of 2015) [2016] KECA 541 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2016/541/eng@2016-05-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.