Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedMemorandum of Claim dated 23rd May 2013· [2014] KEELRC 982 (KLR)

Robert Nyongesa v Sacco Societies Regulatory Authority Harambee Co-Operative Savings & another [2014] KEELRC 982 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
28 March 2014
MOMAUREEN ONYANGO
1,021 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court confirmed that SACCO employment disputes stay in that court, even when the SACCO regulator caused the removal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant sued the SACCO Societies Regulatory Authority (1st Respondent) and Harambee Co-operative Savings and Credit Society Limited (2nd Respondent) after his removal from office by the 2nd Respondent on the directives of the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent raised a preliminary objection contending there was no employer/employee relationship with the Claimant, that it was not privy to the employment contract, that any remedy lay with the Minister or the Co-operative Tribunal under the Sacco Societies Act and Regulations, that the claim was an abuse of process, and that the Court lacked jurisdiction. Counsel for the 1st Respondent sought striking out of the claim; counsel for the Claimant maintained the Industrial Court had exclusive jurisdiction under Section 87(2) of the Employment Act and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction over employment matters. The Court held that the 1st Respondent had directly demanded the Claimant's suspension and removal and a three-year ban from SACCO office, and that the 2nd Respondent removed the Claimant only on the 1st Respondent's directions. The dispute therefore could not be resolved without the 1st Respondent. The Co-operative Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act is confined to disputes concerning the business of a co-operative society and does not extend to employment matters, while the Industrial Court enjoys exclusive jurisdiction over employment and labour disputes. The preliminary objection was accordingly dismissed, delivered in open court on 28th March 2014. No costs order is recorded in the judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the absence of an employer/employee relationship between the Claimant and the 1st Respondent ousts the Court's jurisdiction

Holding

It does not; the 1st Respondent directed the termination and is a necessary party to the employment dispute.

Reasoning

The Court noted that the 1st Respondent wrote directly demanding the Claimant's suspension and removal, and even sought to ban him from holding office in any SACCO for three years. Since the 2nd Respondent pleaded it acted on the 1st Respondent's directions and not of its own volition, the dispute over the Claimant's employment cannot be resolved without the 1st Respondent being before the Court.

p. 3
02

Whether the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Tribunal under Section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act

Holding

No; the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to disputes concerning the business of a co-operative society as defined and does not cover employment matters.

Reasoning

The Court examined Section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act (Cap 490), which confines the Tribunal to disputes among members, past members and societies concerning the business of a co-operative society, including debt claims. None of the defined categories covers an employment dispute, hence the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over employment matters and the Industrial Court's exclusive jurisdiction prevails.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The Industrial Court has exclusive jurisdiction over employment and labour matters, which cannot be ousted in favour of the Co-operative Tribunal.
  • The Co-operative Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act does not extend to employment matters.
  • Where a regulatory authority directs an employer to terminate an employee, the employee's dispute cannot be effectually resolved without that authority as a party.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection is dismissed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 162(2)(a)
  • Sacco Societies ActSection 5; Section 67(3)
  • Sacco Societies (Deposit-taking Sacco Business) Regulations, 2010Regulation 72(7)
  • Employment ActSection 87(2)
  • Co-operative Societies Act (Cap 490)Section 76
  • Industrial Court Actnot specified
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Section 87(2) of the Employment Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Robert Nyongesa v Sacco Societies Regulatory Authority Harambee Co-Operative Savings & another [2014] KEELRC 982 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Memorandum of Claim dated 23rd May 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/982/eng@2014-03-28

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