Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2012] KEELRC 109 (KLR)

JANET MUTHEU MARTIN v FUN AN SHOP LIMITED [2012] KEELRC 109 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
17 December 2012
1,524 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court confirmed employees can sue directly under Section 87 of the Employment Act without first going to a labour officer.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, Janet Mutheu Martin, filed a memorandum of claim on 14th June 2011 alleging that the respondent, M/S Fun An Shop Limited, verbally terminated her employment on 7th March 2011. The respondent raised a preliminary objection asserting that the suit was prematurely instituted because the claimant failed to follow the dispute settlement procedure in Section 87 of the Employment Act, 2007: she did not report the dispute to a labour officer and instead sought the intervention of the Kenya Hotel and Allied Workers Union, with which the respondent had no recognition agreement under Section 54(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 2007. The respondent also relied on Rule 6 of the Industrial Court Procedure Rules, 2010, contending the claim lacked a conciliator's certificate or accompanying affidavit. The claimant, citing Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd, argued the objection raised factual matters and that Section 87(1) gave her an election between a labour officer and the Industrial Court. The court agreed with the claimant's submissions, holding that the objection failed ab initio because it required evidence on matters such as the existence of a recognition agreement and whether conciliation occurred, and that Section 87 entitled the claimant to file suit directly. The court further observed that a successful objection of that nature would warrant only a stay, not dismissal. The preliminary objection was dismissed with costs, and the parties were directed to fix a hearing date on a priority basis.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the preliminary objection met the test in Mukisa Biscuit (pure point of law)

Holding

The objection failed because it required ascertainment of facts such as the existence of a recognition agreement and whether conciliation occurred.

Reasoning

Applying Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd, the court held that a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the opposite side are correct. Here, issues such as whether there was a recognition agreement between the union and the respondent and whether conciliation proceedings took place would require evidence, so the objection was improper.

p. 3
02

Whether the claimant was obliged to report the dispute to a labour officer before filing suit

Holding

No; Section 87(1) gave the claimant a choice between complaining to a labour officer and filing suit in the Industrial Court.

Reasoning

The court read Section 87 of the Employment Act, 2007 as conferring a statutory election on the aggrieved party: to complain to a labour officer or lodge a complaint or suit in the Industrial Court. The claimant's election to file the suit therefore did not breach the law. Additionally, even if conciliation had been required, the appropriate outcome would be a stay of proceedings, not dismissal of the suit.

p. 3
03

What is the consequence of a successful objection premised on failure to invoke statutory conciliation

Holding

At most a stay of proceedings, not dismissal of the case.

Reasoning

The court observed obiter that even if parties were to be directed to invoke the statutory conciliation process, a preliminary objection on such grounds would probably lead to a stay of the proceedings before the court rather than dismissal. This suggests that non-compliance with conciliation requirements is curable and does not extinguish the claim.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law and fails where any fact has to be ascertained or evidence required
  • Under Section 87 of the Employment Act, 2007 the aggrieved party may elect to complain to a labour officer or lodge a suit in the Industrial Court, and the election to file suit is lawful

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The respondent's preliminary objection is dismissed with costs
  2. 2.The parties are directed to fix a convenient hearing date at the registry on a priority basis
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 87 of the Employment Act, 2007 (disputes under contracts of service triable by the Industrial Court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "JANET MUTHEU MARTIN v FUN AN SHOP LIMITED [2012] KEELRC 109 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2012). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2012/109/eng@2012-12-17

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.