Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause 786 of 2010· [2013] KEELRC 482 (KLR)

KENYA UNION OF EMPLOYEES OF VOLUNTARY AND CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS V SUDAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS REGIONAL CONFERENCE [2013] KEELRC 482 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
19 February 2013
MOMAUREEN ONYANGO
627 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court dismissed a worker's claim because his employment contract was signed and performed in Sudan under Sudanese law.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant union filed a dispute against the Sudan Catholic Bishops Regional Conference alleging intimidation and wrongful termination of its grievant, Anthony Omarana Esile, who had been employed as a driver/mechanic. The grievant first signed a 105-day contract in Kenya dated 10th August 2006, subject to Kenyan law, and then a 12-month contract running from 3rd January 2007 to 2nd January 2008, governed by the Caritas Yei (SCBRC) Human Resource Manual, the Employment Act and Sudanese law. The contract expired on 2nd January 2008 but the grievant continued working until 7th March 2008, when he received a letter of termination and was offered one month's salary and USD 100 transport. The claimant sought declarations that the accusations against the grievant were invalid and that the termination was unfair and wrongful, plus terminal dues totalling USD 4,682. The respondent did not file a reply and never appeared despite service. At the hearing on 27th November 2012 the claimant relied on the Memorandum of Claim and appendices. The court held that while the first contract was Kenyan, the dispute arose from the second contract, which was signed and performed entirely in Sudan and expressly subject to Sudanese law, over which the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction. The case was accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction over a foreign employment contract

Holding

The court dismissed the claim because the second contract, under which the Grievant was allegedly wrongfully terminated, was signed and performed entirely in Sudan and was expressly subject to Sudanese law

Reasoning

The first contract was entered into in Kenya and subject to Kenyan law, but had expired. The dispute arose from the second contract, which was signed and performed entirely in Sudan and expressly stated to be subject to the laws of Sudan and the Caritas Yei HR Manual. The court therefore held it lacked jurisdiction to determine a claim founded on that contract and dismissed the suit.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The Industrial Court of Kenya has no jurisdiction to hear and determine employment disputes arising from contracts entered into and performed in Sudan and subject to the laws of Sudan

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actnot specified
Jurisdiction invoked
Jurisdiction of the Industrial Court of Kenya over employment contracts entered into and performed in Sudan and subject to Sudanese law - court found it lacked jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (3)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "KENYA UNION OF EMPLOYEES OF VOLUNTARY AND CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS V SUDAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS REGIONAL CONFERENCE [2013] KEELRC 482 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Cause 786 of 2010. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/482/eng@2013-02-19

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