Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No 2612 of 2016· [2020] KEELRC 1805 (KLR)

Gloria Jepkurui Koima & another v KPMG Advisory Services Limited & 4 others [2020] KEELRC 1805 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
22 January 2020
HWHellen Wasilwa
2,241 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled it can only hear claims from employees, striking out an advocate's claim while allowing the worker's case to continue against all respondents.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondents/Applicants filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection and a Notice of Motion dated 16th July 2019 seeking to strike out the Amended Memorandum of Claim and remove the 2nd Claimant and the 2nd to 5th Respondents from the proceedings. They argued that the ELRC's jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution and the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act is confined to employment disputes; that the 2nd Claimant, sued in his capacity as the 1st Claimant's advocate, had no employer-employee relationship with the 1st Respondent and thus lacked locus standi; and that the 2nd to 5th Respondents, being agents of a disclosed principal, were wrongly enjoined. The 2nd Claimant, James N. Ngugi, admitted he was not employed by the Respondents but maintained his claim concerned breach of his privacy rights arising in the course of the 1st Claimant's employment, and that the 2nd to 5th Respondents were partners personally liable for tortious acts. The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the 2nd Claimant's claim absent any employer-employee relationship and struck him out. However, it declined to strike out the 2nd to 5th Respondents, finding that the relationship between them and the Claimant had not been established in the application. The claim was to proceed between the 1st Claimant and the Respondents, with costs in the cause. The applications therefore succeeded only in part.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction over the 2nd Claimant's claim

Holding

The Court lacks jurisdiction over the 2nd Claimant's claim as he has no employer-employee relationship with the Respondents; he is struck out

Reasoning

The Court derives its jurisdiction from Section 12(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution, which confine it to disputes relating to or arising out of employment between an employer and an employee. The 2nd Claimant was enjoined only as the 1st Claimant's advocate in a non-related divorce matter, with no employment relationship pleaded or shown with the Respondents. His claim therefore fell outside the Court's exclusive jurisdiction.

p. 4
02

Whether the 2nd to 5th Respondents were wrongly enjoined as agents of a disclosed principal

Holding

The application to strike them out is declined because the relationship between them and the 1st Claimant was not established on the application

Reasoning

The Applicants contended the 2nd to 5th Respondents were agents of a disclosed principal and could not be sued, relying on authorities such as Victor Mabachi v Nurtun Bates. The Claimants countered that they were partners sued for tortious acts in their personal capacities. The Court found that the pleaded relationship between the said Respondents and the 1st Claimant had not been established in the application, and so declined to remove them at that interlocutory stage.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The ELRC's jurisdiction is limited to employment and labour relations disputes arising from an employer-employee relationship, and a claimant with no such relationship cannot sustain a claim before it

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 2nd Claimant is struck out from these claims
  2. 2.The application to strike out the 2nd to 5th Respondents is declined; the 2nd to 5th Respondents remain parties
  3. 3.The claim to proceed between the 1st Claimant and the Respondents
  4. 4.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 159, 162(2), 162(2)(a)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011Sections 11, 12(1), 12(2) and (3), 12(3)(iv)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Rules, 2016Rule 17(1) and (8)

Cases cited (10)

  • Daniel N. Mugendi vs Kenyatta University & 3 Others
    (2013) eKLR
  • Agricultural Finance Corporation vs Lengetia
    1982-88 1 KAR 772
  • City Council of Nairobi vs Wilfred Kamau Githua T/A Githua Associated & Another
    (2016) eKLR
  • Victor Mabachi & Another vs Nurtun Bates Limited
    (2013) eKLR
  • Manuel Anidos vs Kinangop Windpark Limited (in receivership) & 2 Others
    (2019) eKLR
  • Apex International & Anglo Leasing Finance Limited vs Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission
    (2012) eKLR
  • Goodwill and Trust Investments Limited & Another vs Witt & Bush Limited
    Nigerian SC 266/2005
  • George Joshua Okungu vs Kenya Pipeline Company Limited & 3 Others
    (2016) eKLR
  • Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another vs Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 Others
    (2012) eKLR
  • National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees vs Ankah Holdings & Others
    (2016) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gloria Jepkurui Koima & another v KPMG Advisory Services Limited & 4 others [2020] KEELRC 1805 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No 2612 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1805/eng@2020-01-22

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