Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment (Petition filed 10th February 2014)· [2014] KEELRC 1065 (KLR)

Maendeleo Ya Wanawake Organisation v Hellen Makone & another [2014] KEELRC 1065 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
10 June 2014
1,980 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court confirmed it alone hears employment disputes, striking out a magistrate court case as a nullity while letting the plaintiff restart.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioners, a union through its Chairperson Rukia Subow, filed a petition seeking to stay all proceedings in Milimani CMCC No. 8114 of 2013, a declaration that those proceedings were an employer/employee dispute belonging to the Industrial Court, and an order transferring them to the Industrial Court. Interim stay orders were granted on 11th February 2014. The Respondent, the plaintiff in CMCC 8114 of 2013 (Hellen Makone, former executive director of the 1st Petitioner), opposed the petition, arguing it was bad faith forum shopping, that the Industrial Court lacked supervisory powers over the Chief Magistrate's Court under Article 165(6), and that a suit filed in a court without jurisdiction is a nullity that cannot be transferred, relying on Boniface Waweru Mbivu and Abraham Mwangi Wamigwi. The court framed two issues: its own supervisory jurisdiction and the Chief Magistrate's Court's jurisdiction. Holding that the Industrial Court, as a court with the status of the High Court under Article 162(2), possesses supervisory powers over subordinate courts in employment matters, and that the plaint disclosed an employer/employee dispute within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under Section 12 of the Industrial Court Act and Section 87(1) of the Employment Act, the court declared CMCC 8114 of 2013 a nullity and struck it out. As a nullity cannot be transferred, there was nothing to transfer; the petition's substratum collapsed and it was declared spent. The Respondent was left free to file her claim afresh, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Industrial Court has supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts in employment and labour relations matters

Holding

Yes. The Industrial Court has the same status and jurisdiction as the High Court when handling employment and labour relations matters, and therefore may supervise subordinate courts exercising jurisdiction over such matters.

Reasoning

Article 162(2) establishes courts with the status of the High Court for employment and labour disputes, while Article 165(5) excludes such matters from the High Court's jurisdiction. Reading the two together, the supervisory power donated to the High Court under Article 165(6) and (7) vests in the Industrial Court in employment matters. Sections 18(2), 29 and 12 of the Industrial Court Act support this position, consistent with Majanja J's ruling in USIU v Attorney General.

p. 3
02

Whether the claim in CMCC No. 8114 of 2013 is an employment and labour relations dispute outside the Chief Magistrate's Court's jurisdiction

Holding

Yes. The dispute between the Respondent and the Petitioners is an employer/employee dispute falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Court.

Reasoning

Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the plaint pleaded that the Respondent was executive director of the 1st Petitioner and was locked out of her office by the 2nd Petitioner, and the prayers sought reinstatement and non-interference with her duties. These demonstrate an employer/employee dispute envisaged by Section 12(1)(a) of the Industrial Court Act and Section 87(1) of the Employment Act, over which the Industrial Court has exclusive jurisdiction under Articles 162(2) and 165(5) of the Constitution.

p. 4
03

Whether the suit filed before the Chief Magistrate's Court could be transferred to the Industrial Court

Holding

No. A suit filed in a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be transferred; the suit was struck out and the Respondent left free to file her claim afresh.

Reasoning

Following Boniface Waweru Mbivu v Mary Njeri & Another and Abraham Mwangi Wamigwi v Simon Mbiriri Wanjiku & Another, a suit filed in a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and a nullity cannot be moulded into something through a transfer. The court accordingly declared CMCC 8114 of 2013 a nullity, struck it out, and held there was nothing to transfer, leaving the Respondent free to institute a fresh claim.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The Industrial Court, having the status of the High Court under Article 162(2) of the Constitution, has jurisdiction to supervise subordinate courts in employment and labour relations matters
  • A suit filed in a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be transferred to a competent court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that CMCC No. 8114 of 2013 is a nullity
  2. 2.CMCC No. 8114 of 2013 is struck out
  3. 3.No transfer of the suit to the Industrial Court, as there is nothing to be transferred
  4. 4.The Petition is declared conclusively dealt with and spent
  5. 5.The Respondent is at liberty to file her claim afresh in the Industrial Court
  6. 6.Each party to bear its own costs of the application and the Petition

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 162(2)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 165(5)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 165(6) and (7)
  • Industrial Court ActSection 12 (and Section 12(1)(a))
  • Industrial Court ActSection 18(2)
  • Industrial Court ActSection 29(3), (4) and (5)
  • Employment ActSection 87(1)

Cases cited (3)

  • Boniface Waweru Mbivu V Mary Njeri & Another
    no citation given
  • Abraham Mwangi Wamigwi V Simon Mbiriri Wanjiku & Another
    [2012] eKLR
  • United States International University (USIU) V Attorney General
    2012 eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 162(2) and 165 of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Industrial Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

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, "Maendeleo Ya Wanawake Organisation v Hellen Makone & another [2014] KEELRC 1065 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Not stated in the judgment (Petition filed 10th February 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/1065/eng@2014-06-10

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