Akrim v Mobile Consultations Africa Ltd (Cause E055 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 425 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled it cannot hear rent arrears claims in employment cases unless the tenancy is clearly linked to the job.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction over tenancy/rent arrears claim within an employment suit
The court lacks jurisdiction over the rent arrears claim because the tenancy was not demonstrated to be directly related to the employment relationship
The claimant relied on section 12(1)(a) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act arguing the premises were used by the respondent by virtue of the employment relationship. The court found the claimant had not demonstrated that the tenancy was connected to or arose from employment, noting tenancies are often entered into without any employment nexus. The matters of tenancy payment therefore fall outside the court's jurisdiction under the Act.
Whether impugned paragraphs are scandalous, vexatious and an abuse of process
Application to strike out paragraph 13 and witness statement paragraph 5 refused as premature; the court will determine the matter at the conclusion of the suit
The court held that no prejudice would be caused if the case proceeded to full hearing and evidence was adduced. There was insufficient evidence to conclude the impugned passages were an abuse of process, and it was premature to rule at that interlocutory stage. The court reserved final determination on the allegations until the conclusion of the suit.
Shareholding and co-founder title
The court declined to address shareholding as it was not raised in the claim and is not in dispute
The claimant himself admitted he was not asking the court to determine the shareholding question, which the parties had handled between themselves through a proposed vesting agreement. Since the issue was not raised in the claim, the court would not address it, and prayer (c) relating to shareholding was struck out.
Legal principles established
#- A court's jurisdiction flows from the constitution or legislation and cannot exceed what is conferred by law
- Jurisdiction is a threshold question best taken at inception and must be addressed promptly once it arises
- Jurisdiction is everything; a court without jurisdiction must drop the case
Court orders
#- 1.Paragraphs 7 and 20(d) of the memorandum of claim and prayers b(iv) struck out for want of jurisdiction over the rent/tenancy claim
- 2.Prayer (c) of the memorandum of claim relating to shareholding struck out as it is not in dispute
- 3.Prayer 2 of the application (striking out paragraph 13 of the memorandum of claim and paragraph 5 of the witness statement as scandalous/vexatious) not granted
- 4.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 12(1)(a) and 55 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act / Employment and Labour Relations Act; Order 2 rule 15(1) Civil Procedure Rules for striking out pleadings
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Akrim v Mobile Consultations Africa Ltd (Cause E055 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 425 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No E055 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/425/eng@2023-02-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.