Kenya Medical Research Institute v Attorney General & 3 others [2014] KEELRC 757 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that the Chief Justice can staff constitutional benches with any superior court judge, including High Court judges hearing employment matters.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a Bench empanelled under Article 165(4) may be composed of Judges from both the High Court and the Industrial Court
Yes. Article 165(4) is not an ordinary jurisdiction and a Bench so empanelled cannot be termed an Industrial Court; the Chief Justice acting under Article 165(4) performs a constitutionally mandated function and may assign any Judge of a superior court with the status of the High Court.
The Court held that the Chief Justice's empanelling of the Bench was a constitutional mandate under Article 165(4), not an administrative act, and that decision had not been challenged. Article 165(4) jurisdiction is special — it exists to interpret the Constitution or determine Bill of Rights questions — so such a Bench is not an Industrial Court to be constituted solely of Industrial Court Judges. Interpreting the Constitution under Article 259 to constrain the Chief Justice's power would not advance its purpose, values and principles.
Whether the Industrial Court and the High Court have the same status such that a High Court Judge may preside over employment and labour disputes
Yes. Courts established under Article 162(2) are superior courts of the same status as the High Court; the Constitution does not create different cadres of Judges, and additional qualifications under the Industrial Court Act do not render a constitutionally qualified Judge incompetent.
The Court reasoned that although both courts resemble each other, the Constitution only creates courts and prescribes qualifications and mode of appointment; the Judicial Service Commission appoints Judges to preside over them. To hold that a High Court Judge is incompetent in employment matters would imply absurdity, since such a Judge becomes competent on elevation to the Court of Appeal. Additional statutory competencies do not diminish a Judge's competence.
Whether the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to deal with constitutional issues arising in matters before it
Yes — it is trite law, supported by United States International University (USIU) v Attorney General, that the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to deal with constitutional issues arising in matters before it.
The petitioner relied on USIU to submit that the Industrial Court, having the status of the High Court, may enforce Article 41 rights and all fundamental rights ancillary to employment and labour relations, including interpretation of the Constitution within matters before it. The Court adopted this as trite and held that since the Bench included at least one Industrial Court Judge, the contention that it was improperly constituted could not stand.
Legal principles established
#- In assigning Judges under Article 165(4) of the Constitution, the Chief Justice may assign any Judge of the High Court or of a court with the status of the High Court; the Constitution creates courts, not different cadres of Judges
- It is the Court, not the person of the Judge, that determines the kind of disputes to be dealt with
Court orders
#- 1.The objection by the interested parties to the composition of the Bench is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 165(4) of the Constitution, as read with section 21(2) of the Industrial Court Act, 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Medical Research Institute v Attorney General & 3 others [2014] KEELRC 757 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). null — the judgment does not state the petition number. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/757/eng@2014-05-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.