Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedStatement of Claim filed 2nd May 2017 (number not stated in judgment)· [2019] KEELRC 1830 (KLR)

Kenya Union of Employees of Voluntary and Charitable Organizations (KUEVACO) & another v Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (Kuppet) – Headquaters & 3 others [2019] KEELRC 1830 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
1 April 2019
1,136 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled the Attorney General must stay in a worker's lawsuit when a labour officer's actions are challenged.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant filed a Statement of Claim on behalf of the Grievant, Evangeline Muthoni Njeru, alleging constructive dismissal against the Respondents, including the Kenya Union of Commercial Food & Allied Workers, a labour officer and the Attorney General. On 21st February 2018 the Attorney General, as 4th Respondent, raised a preliminary objection on six grounds: that the suit offended Section 43 of the County Government Act, 2012; that the Attorney General can only represent the County Government of Tharaka Nithi upon its request under Article 156(4) of the Constitution; that the 3rd Respondent was not a labour officer in the Ministry of East African Community, Labour and Social Protection; that no cause of action was disclosed against the 4th Respondent; that the Attorney General was improperly joined; and that he ought to be excused from the proceedings. The Claimant, through an affidavit deponed by Odin Boaz Otieno, maintained that the Attorney General was properly joined under Section 13A(2) of the Government Proceedings Act and Article 50(2)(k) of the Constitution. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents took a neutral position and urged dismissal of the objection. The court found that although the grievant was employed by the 1st Respondent trade union, the claim cited incidences pointing to actions or inactions of the Labour Officer of Tharaka Nithi, implying a claim against the Attorney General. The preliminary objection was accordingly dismissed, the Attorney General remained a party, and costs were awarded in the cause. Judgment delivered on 1st April 2019 by Lady Justice Hellen Wasilwa.

Key legal issues

#
01

Joinder of the Attorney General as 4th Respondent

Holding

The Attorney General was properly joined because the claim alleged actions or inactions of the Tharaka Nithi Labour Officer.

Reasoning

The court noted the grievant was employed by the 1st Respondent, a trade union capable of suing and being sued, and that the 1st and 2nd Respondents were not answerable to the Attorney General. However, paragraphs 4 to 7 of the claim cited incidences pointing to actions or inactions of the Labour Officer of Tharaka Nithi, implying a claim against the Attorney General. It was therefore appropriate that the Attorney General remain enjoined to defend those actions.

p. 2
02

Preliminary objection under Section 43 of the County Government Act, 2012

Holding

The objection that the suit offended Section 43 of the County Government Act failed.

Reasoning

The 4th Respondent argued that the County Government is autonomous and the Attorney General can only represent it upon its request, pursuant to Section 43 of the County Government Act and Article 156(4) of the Constitution. The Claimant countered that joinder was compelled under Section 13A(2) of the Government Proceedings Act and Article 50(2)(k). The court, finding a claim against the Labour Officer, held the Attorney General properly enjoined and dismissed the objection.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the grievant's claim points to actions or inactions of a Labour Officer, the Attorney General is properly enjoined to defend those actions.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 21st February 2018 is dismissed
  2. 2.The 4th Respondent (Attorney General) stays as a party to the suit
  3. 3.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • County Government ActSection 43
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 156(4)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 50(2)(k)
  • Government Proceedings ActSection 13(A)(2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rule 3
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) RulesRule 13(1)

Cases cited (3)

  • Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemo & 5 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Appex International Ltd & Anglo Leasing & Finance International Ltd v Kenya Anti-corruption Commission
    [2012] eKLR
  • V.K. Construction Company Ltd v Mpata Investments Ltd
    Nairobi HCC 257/2003
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2) of the Constitution - Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction; provisions considered include Article 50(2)(k), Article 156(4), County Government Act 2012 s.43, Government Proceedings Act s.13A(2)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Employees of Voluntary and Charitable Organizations (KUEVACO) & another v Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (Kuppet) – Headquaters & 3 others [2019] KEELRC 1830 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Statement of Claim filed 2nd May 2017 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1830/eng@2019-04-01

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