Vision Institute of Professionals Ltd v Maubi & 4 others (Civil Appeal E804 of 2024) [2026] KECA 951 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that a company's claim to recover fraudulently stolen funds from ex-employees and its bank belongs in the High Court, not the Employment Court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the learned Judge erred by finding that the High Court was not seized of jurisdiction to determine the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the High Court had jurisdiction over the appellant's claim for fraudulent transfer of funds involving its employees and its banker
Yes — the dispute is not solely an employer-employee dispute; its crux is fraud and negligence in banking, implicating a third-party banker, and it properly lies in the High Court.
Applying the Supreme Court's direction that the first port of call in a jurisdictional inquiry is to determine the nature of the dispute, the Court examined the plaint: it alleges fraud by the 1st–4th respondents and negligence by the bank. Section 12(2) of the ELRC Act defines who may litigate in the ELRC; the banker is not among them, so excluding the bank would sever the claim. The existence of the earlier ELRC suit was moot, the trial Judge having found a different cause of action.
Whether the learned Judge's decision transferring the suit to the ELRC should be disturbed
Yes — she misdirected herself in ousting the High Court's jurisdiction; the ruling was set aside in its entirety.
The trial Judge had reasoned that the fraudulent transfers could only have occurred while the defendants were in employment, bringing the dispute within section 12(1)(a) of the ELRC Act. The Court of Appeal held this focus on the employment relationship missed that the dispute is essentially a banking-fraud claim involving a non-employee third party, and that the transfer decision was plainly wrong and rested on a legal misdirection.
Relevance of the earlier ELRC suit (ELRC No. 258 of 2020)
Moot — the trial Judge found it involved a different cause of action and was a standalone case between different parties, so nothing turns on it.
The 1st respondent had relied on the pendency of ELRC No. 258 of 2020 (an unfair termination claim by the 1st respondent alone) to support the preliminary objection. The Court noted the trial Judge had found that matter involved a different cause of action from the present suit, and on that footing the sub-judice issue fell away entirely.
Legal principles established
#- Where the heart of a dispute is fraud and negligence in banking implicating a third-party banker, the suit does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ELRC but lies in the High Court.
- In determining jurisdictional competence, the first step is to determine the nature of the dispute; a claim for recovery of stolen funds does not fall within the ELRC's jurisdiction.
- The High Court has jurisdiction over such suits pursuant to Article 165(3)(a) of the Constitution.
- An appellate court may only interfere with a judge's exercise of discretion where the judge misapprehended the facts, misdirected herself on law, took into account irrelevant matters, failed to consider relevant matters, or was plainly wrong.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed and the impugned ruling set aside in its entirety
- 2.Substituted therefor an order affirming the jurisdiction of the High Court over the matter
- 3.Preliminary objection dismissed with costs
- 4.Costs of the appeal to be borne by the 1st respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Not stated in judgment (suit by plaint dated 9th October 2020)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Court of Appeal appellate jurisdiction against a High Court ruling; jurisdictional analysis under Articles 162(2) and 165(3)(a) of the Constitution and section 12(1)(a) of the ELRC Act
Relief refused
#Costs of the preliminary objection and appeal to be borne by each party (as sought by the appellant)
The Court instead awarded costs to the appellant, fixing the 1st respondent with the costs of the appeal
Costs
The preliminary objection was dismissed with costs; costs of the appeal shall be borne by the 1st respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Indeed, it seems to us plain that the heart of the dispute is not employment but fraud and negligence in the matter of banking at the centre of which is the 5th respondent as the appellant’s banker.
To our mind, the crux of the instant suit being recovery of stolen funds, the case does not fall within the jurisdictional purview of the ELRC.
The case was properly before the High Court pursuant to Article 165(3)(a) of the Constitution and we so find.
Ultimately, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned ruling in entirety. We substitute therefor an order afirming the jurisdiction of the High Court over the matter and dismissing the preliminary objection with costs.
Costs of this appeal shall be borne by the 1st respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's numbered paragraphs jump from paragraph 30 (the disposal) to paragraph 40 (costs), suggesting missing or misnumbered paragraphs in the copy provided.
The case title, case number and parties' full names are not stated in the copy of the judgment provided; the parties are identified only by roles and the parties/submissions describe the appellant's business (sewerage/water context implied by the 5th respondent being its banker) without naming it.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Vision Institute of Professionals Ltd v Maubi & 4 others (Civil Appeal E804 of 2024) [2026] KECA 951 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal (Nairobi) — number not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/951/eng@2026-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.