Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherClaim and Application dated 19th November 2020· [2021] KEELRC 1873 (KLR)

Rift Valley Railway Workers Union [K] v Kenya Railways Corporation & 3 others; Attorney-General & 6 others (Interested parties) [2021] KEELRC 1873 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
8 April 2021
JRJames Rika
926 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 and Labour Relations Court ruled it cannot hear challenges to laws like the Railways Bill unless they are mainly about workers' rights.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Railway Workers Union filed a claim and application dated 19th November 2020 seeking, among other reliefs, a stay of the tabling and enactment of the Kenya Railways Act 2019, a declaration that the Rift Valley Railways Workers Union is a lawful stakeholder representing railway workers and retirees, a stay of the 3rd Respondent's Report and Proposals of 11th August 2020 concerning assets of over 8,600 members of the KRSRBS trust, publication of new commencement dates, interim custody of the disputed assets, and a declaration that Vesting Order Number 22 of 2012 is null and void for lack of public participation. The 1st Interested Party raised a preliminary objection on jurisdiction, contending the dispute falls outside Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and Section 12(1) of the E&LRC Act, a position with which a majority of the other parties associated. The objection was heard on written submissions. The court examined the Railways Bill 2019 and found it is not a labour bill but one reforming Kenya Railways in its totality, covering corporation management, financial governance, railway construction, safety, licensing, carriage of passengers and goods, accidents and a training institute. Holding that the labour aspect is minimal and that each arm of Government must refrain from directing another in the exercise of its mandate, the court upheld the preliminary objection, declined jurisdiction, and forwarded the matter to the Constitutional Division of the High Court at Nairobi, with no order on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the E&LRC has jurisdiction over the Railways Bill 2019 and related executive decisions

Holding

The court upheld the preliminary objection and declined jurisdiction because the Bill is not confined to employment and labour relations; the labour aspect is minimal and the appropriate forum is the High Court, Constitutional Division.

Reasoning

The court examined the content of the Railways Bill 2019 and found it deals with establishment and management of the Kenya Railways Corporation, financial governance, railway construction, safety, licensing, carriage of passengers and goods, accidents and a training institute. Since the labour element is minimal and the Bill aims at reforming Kenya Railways in its totality, the court lacks jurisdiction and transferred the file to the High Court.

p. 2
02

Whether the court can restrain the legislative and executive processes relating to the Bill

Holding

No; arms of Government acting within their constitutional mandates cannot be restrained by the E&LRC, and even the High Court would doubtfully issue such orders.

Reasoning

Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Justus Kariuki Mate & Another v Martin Nyaga Wambora & Another, the court held that each arm of Government must refrain from directing another on how to exercise its mandate. The claimant sought to restrain Parliament and the executive in performing legislative and executive functions within their constitutional mandates, which no court, including the High Court's Constitutional Division, would readily restrain.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The E&LRC can assume jurisdiction over legislation only where the impugned bill is preponderantly a labour bill
  • Each arm of Government is under duty to refrain from directing another arm on how to exercise its mandate
  • Where a court lacks jurisdiction it must decline and forward the file to the court with the closest connecting factors

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection on jurisdiction is upheld
  2. 2.The matter shall be forwarded to the Constitutional Division, High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, for hearing and determination
  3. 3.No order on the costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 162(2)(a)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12(1)
  • Kenya Railways Act 2019
  • Railways Act, Cap 397
  • Railways Bill 2019

Cases cited (3)

  • Samuel Kamau Macharia v. Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 others
    [2012] e-KLR
  • United States University International [U.S.I.U] & 3 Others v. Attorney-General & 13 Others
    [2016] e-KLR
  • Justus Kariuki Mate & Another v. Martin Nyaga Wambora & Another
    [2017] e-KLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya and Section 12(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rift Valley Railway Workers Union [K] v Kenya Railways Corporation & 3 others; Attorney-General & 6 others (Interested parties) [2021] KEELRC 1873 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Claim and Application dated 19th November 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1873/eng@2021-04-08

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