Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherNot stated in judgment (transferred from the High Court)· [2019] KEELRC 431 (KLR)

Adrian Kamotho Njenga v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education,Science & Technology & another [2019] KEELRC 431 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
8 November 2019
RSRadido Stephen
994 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 Employment Court confirmed it can only hear cases tied to employment relationships, so this education dispute went back to the High Court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The High Court transferred this Petition to the Employment and Labour Relations Court on 23 October 2019 on the ground that it raised factual and legal issues similar to those in Petition No. 43 of 2019, Universities Academic Staff Union v Cabinet Secretary, Education & Commission for University Education, pending before the ELRC. Before the transfer, UASU had applied to the High Court to join the Petition as an Interested Party; that application was undecided when the transfer order issued. When the file came before the ELRC on 24 October 2019, the Court invited submissions on its own jurisdiction. The Petitioner, the 2nd Respondent and UASU (the proposed Interested Party) all conceded that the Court lacked jurisdiction because no employer/employee relationship under section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, nor any trade dispute under the Labour Relations Act, existed between the parties. The 1st Respondent made no submissions, citing limited instructions. The Court held that section 12 requires both party standing and subject matter locus anchored in an employment or labour relations relationship, which the pleadings did not disclose. Although public policy and legal certainty favour determining disputes in one proper forum, that consideration is subordinate to jurisdiction. Finding no jurisdiction, the Court directed that the Petition be transferred back to the High Court for placement before it on 17 December 2019 as earlier scheduled, and made no order as to costs. The Court also observed that the question of parties filing petitions in the guise of public interest where a directly affected party has already sued may require attention through appropriate legal instruments.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ELRC had jurisdiction over a petition transferred from the High Court where no employment or labour relationship existed between the substantive parties

Holding

The Court had no jurisdiction; the pleadings disclosed neither party standing anchored on an employment relationship nor a trade dispute under the Labour Relations Act

Reasoning

The Court drew its jurisdiction from the ELRC Act, Employment Act, Labour Relations Act and Labour Institutions Act. Section 12 of the ELRC Act requires both party standing and subject matter locus within an employment and labour relations relationship. On the face of the pleadings, no employment relationship bound the Petitioner and Respondents, no trade dispute was disclosed, and UASU had not even been admitted as an Interested Party before transfer. All substantive parties conceded the absence of jurisdiction.

p. 2
02

The propriety of transferring a petition to a court without jurisdiction for purposes of avoiding parallel proceedings

Holding

Although public policy favours one forum, that policy is subordinate to jurisdiction; a court cannot assume jurisdiction merely to promote legal certainty

Reasoning

The Court acknowledged the need to avoid inconsistent decisions in parallel proceedings, noting both this Petition and UASU's Petition No. 43 of 2019 were on the homestretch. However, legal certainty could not cure the want of jurisdiction. The petition was therefore returned to the High Court, where it had been scheduled for highlighting of submissions on 17 December 2019.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Before a court assumes jurisdiction, it must locate the jurisdiction in some written law.
  • Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act vests jurisdiction where there is both party standing/locus and subject matter locus within the employment and labour relations relationship.
  • Public policy and legal certainty require that disputes be instituted, heard and determined in one proper forum to avoid inconsistent decisions.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Court found it had no jurisdiction over the Petition
  2. 2.The Petition was directed to be transferred back to the High Court, to be placed before it on 17 December 2019 as earlier scheduled
  3. 3.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Actsection 12
  • Employment ActNot specified
  • Labour Relations ActNot specified
  • Labour Institutions ActNot specified
  • ConstitutionNot specified (referred to generally on locus standi)

Cases cited (1)

  • Universities Academic Staff Union v Cabinet Secretary, Education & Commission for University Education
    Petition No. 43 of 2019
On appeal from
High Court
Not stated (Petition transferred from High Court on 23 October 2019)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; transfer under the High Court order of 23 October 2019

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Adrian Kamotho Njenga v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education,Science & Technology & another [2019] KEELRC 431 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in judgment (transferred from the High Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/431/eng@2019-11-08

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