Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutPetition dated 22 February 2022 (Constitutional Petition)· [2022] KEELRC 1494 (KLR)

Tiko v County Secretary, Siaya County Government & 4 others (Petition E011 of 2022) [2022] KEELRC 1494 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
8 June 2022
1,972 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court struck out a dismissed water company director's petition, confirming directors without salaries aren't employees and must first use contractual arbitration.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner, Caroline Atieno Tiko, was notified on or around 12 November 2020 of her appointment as a Director of Sibo Water and Sanitation Co. Ltd for a three-year term, and on 6 December 2021 the Chair of the company informed her that her appointment had ended on 3 December 2021. She filed a constitutional petition alleging her removal contravened her right to fair administrative action and that the decision was made by a person who was not the appointing authority, together with a motion for interim conservatory and injunctive orders. The respondents filed a preliminary objection contending the petition failed the Anarita Karimi test of pleading with precision the constitutional provisions violated, and that it offended section 9 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act for failure to exhaust alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. The Water Services Regulatory Board's affidavit supported the petitioner, alleging removal contrary to its 2018 Corporate Governance Guidelines. The court first examined jurisdiction, noting inconsistent decisions on whether a water company director is an employee. Reviewing Asanyo, Marakia and Randu, and applying the Eaton tests and section 2 of the Employment Act, it held the petitioner was not an employee: her appointment letter expressly excluded an employment relationship and provided for meeting allowances, not salary. The court endorsed Marakia and Randu and declined jurisdiction. On the alternative, it found the petition premature because article 135 of the articles of association established arbitration as the first-instance dispute resolution avenue, which the petitioner never attempted to use. The petition was struck out with no order on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a director of a water company is an employee for purposes of the court's jurisdiction

Holding

The petitioner was not an employee; the appointment letter expressly excluded an employment relationship and provided for meeting allowances, not salary, so the court declined jurisdiction

Reasoning

The court noted inconsistent decisions of judges of the same court. It reviewed Asanyo (holding a water company director was an employee), and Marakia and Randu (holding otherwise). Applying the Eaton tests and section 2 of the Employment Act, it found the petitioner's own documents acknowledged she was not an employee; clause 8 of the appointment letter expressly excluded a contract of employment and remuneration was by meeting allowances, not salary. It endorsed the last two decisions.

p. 3
02

Whether the petition was premature for failure to exhaust alternative dispute resolution mechanisms

Holding

The petition was premature because article 135 of the articles of association established arbitration as the first-instance dispute resolution avenue and the petitioner did not attempt to use it

Reasoning

Article 135 of the articles of association establishes arbitration, guided by the Arbitration Act, as the first-instance avenue for disputes between the Water company and its directors. The petitioner never attempted to invoke that avenue before filing the petition, so the objection on exhaustion under section 9 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act prevailed.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A director of a water company, appointed under memorandum and articles of association and paid meeting allowances rather than salary, is not an employee for purposes of the Employment Act and the court's jurisdiction
  • A contractual arbitration clause establishing arbitration as the first-instance dispute resolution avenue must be exhausted before approaching the court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition is struck out with no order on costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Companies Act
  • Water Act
  • Employment Act, 2007section 2
  • Fair Administrative Actions Act, 2015section 9
  • Arbitration Act
  • Corporate Governance Guidelines for the Water Services Sector, 2018

Cases cited (6)

  • Anarita Karimi (case referred to in the preliminary objection)
  • Geoffrey Makana Asanyo v Nakuru Water and Sanitation Services Company & 6 ors
    (2014) eKLR
  • Wambeye Kimweli Marakia v Board of Directors, Nzoia Water Services Co. Ltd & 2 ors
    (2019) eKLR
  • David Randu v Malindi Water & Sewerage Company Ltd
    (2013) eKLR
  • Eaton v Robert Ltd & Ar
    (1988) IRIR 83
  • Rift Valley Water Services Board & Ors v Geoffrey Asanyo & Ors (Nakuru Civil Appeal No. 60 of 2015 consolidated with Nakuru Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2015)
Jurisdiction invoked
Constitutional petition invoking fair administrative action rights; court examined its jurisdiction under the Employment Act and related employment and labour relations law

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Tiko v County Secretary, Siaya County Government & 4 others (Petition E011 of 2022) [2022] KEELRC 1494 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Petition dated 22 February 2022 (Constitutional Petition). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1494/eng@2022-06-08

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