CFC Stanbic Bank Limited (formerly Stanbic Bank of Kenya Limited) v Mutia Muindu t/a Mutibra Auctioneers & 2 others [2016] KEELRC 434 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment and Labour Relations Court confirmed it can hear employment disputes anywhere in the country and allowed the Bank's property-rights petition to proceed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Territorial jurisdiction of the ELRC
The objection was dismissed; the ELRC has nationwide territorial jurisdiction over matters under section 12 of the ELRC Act.
The court accepted that the Employment and Labour Relations Court, wherever situated, may adjudicate any matter within its statutory jurisdiction, with no territorial demarcation. Additionally, the two judges sitting in Mombasa had recused themselves in ELRC No. 116 of 2013 (now 1262 of 2015), so the matter was transferred to Nairobi, and the petition emanating from that suit was properly filed in Nairobi.
Res judicata and sub judice
The objection failed because none of the five requirements for res judicata was established.
Applying the Kenya Hotel Properties test, the court was satisfied that the five requirements - same matter in issue, same parties or privies, same title, competent court, and final decision on the merits - had not been met. The subject matter of the petition had not previously been litigated on its merits, so the petition was neither res judicata nor sub judice.
Sufficiency of constitutional pleading under Anarita Karimi Njeru
The petition sufficiently pleads the violation of the Bank's right to property under Article 40.
The respondents argued the petition raised no constitutional issue and failed the Anarita Karimi Njeru specificity standard. The court held the alleged violation of the Bank's Article 40 right to property was clearly set out in the petition and application, satisfying the requirement to cite the constitutional provision, the manner of violation and the remedy sought.
Authority to execute the verifying affidavit
Sufficient authority was disclosed by the Head of Legal Services, and no verifying affidavit is required in a constitutional petition in any event.
The court found the Head, Legal Services disclosed his authority to bring the petition and application on behalf of the Bank. Further, agreeing with the petitioner, the court held that the Mutunga Rules do not obligate a petitioner to file a supporting or verifying affidavit, such a requirement applying only to suits commenced by plaint and interlocutory applications.
Legal principles established
#- The Employment and Labour Relations Court anywhere in Kenya has territorial jurisdiction over any matter within section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act; no territorial demarcation exists.
- There is no requirement for a supporting or verifying affidavit in a constitutional petition, unlike a civil suit commenced by plaint.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the objection on territorial jurisdiction
- 2.Dismissal of the objection on res judicata/res sub judice
- 3.Dismissal of the objection that the petition lacks material averments
- 4.Dismissal of the objection on authority to execute the verifying affidavit
- 5.All preliminary objections dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Act, section 12 (as amended) - constitutional petition under Article 40 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "CFC Stanbic Bank Limited (formerly Stanbic Bank of Kenya Limited) v Mutia Muindu t/a Mutibra Auctioneers & 2 others [2016] KEELRC 434 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Petition dated 8th April 2016 (Employment and Labour Relations Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/434/eng@2016-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.