Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2023] KEELRC 1488 (KLR)

Muchunu v NRS Sacco Society Limited (Cause E422 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1488 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
13 June 2023
1,063 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 Court confirmed that a dispute over an employee's salary cannot end a case early because salary is a factual issue requiring evidence at trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant sued on June 20, 2022, alleging unlawful and unfair termination of her employment by a letter dated June 7, 2019. She had been employed on February 13, 2018 as a BDAM on a gross salary of Ksh 44,000, later upscaled on November 1, 2018 to a basic pay of Ksh 68,970 plus 20% house allowance, totalling Ksh 82,764 gross. The respondent filed a preliminary objection dated July 26, 2022 contending that the court lacked jurisdiction because the claimant's gross monthly pay (which it put at Ksh 48,100) fell below the Ksh 80,000 threshold, so the dispute belonged to the magistrates' court as special magistrates under Gazette Notice Number 6024 of June 22, 2018. The respondent relied on Rajiv Shem Sabisa v Limuru Water and Sewerage Co Ltd, Philip Muiruri Ndaruga v Gatemu Housing Co Ltd, and Speaker of the National Assembly v James Njenga Karume. The claimant maintained that her confirmed salary of Ksh 82,764 exceeded the threshold. Applying Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd, the court held that the claimant's salary amount is a factual issue requiring proof at trial, not a pure point of law, and therefore the objection did not meet the test for a preliminary objection. The court further held that it has jurisdiction under section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act over all labour and employment disputes, and that the Chief Justice's gazette notice was intended only to decongest the courts, not to divest the ELRC of jurisdiction. The preliminary objection was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a dispute over the claimant's gross monthly pay can be resolved via preliminary objection for want of jurisdiction

Holding

No; the salary amount is a factual question to be proved at trial, so the objection fails the Mukisa Biscuits test

Reasoning

The court applied the Mukisa Biscuits definition of a preliminary objection as a pure point of law arising from pleadings. Since the claimant pleads a salary of Kshs 82,764/- at termination, exceeding the Kshs 80,000/- threshold, whether her pay exceeded the threshold requires evidence and cannot be determined summarily on a point of law.

p. 2
02

Whether the gazette notice conferring jurisdiction on magistrates ousts the ELRC's jurisdiction over employment disputes

Holding

No; the ELRC retains jurisdiction under section 12 of the ELRC Act; the gazette notice only served to decongest the courts

Reasoning

The court held that section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act confers jurisdiction to hear all labour and employment disputes. The Chief Justice's gazette notice appointing special magistrates was an administrative measure to address case backlog and did not divest the ELRC of its jurisdiction.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The amount of an employee's salary is a factual matter requiring proof at hearing, and does not qualify as a preliminary point of law
  • The Chief Justice's gazette notice appointing special magistrates for employment disputes was meant to unclog case backlog, not to oust the ELRC's jurisdiction under section 12

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection dated July 26, 2022 is dismissed with costs to be in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muchunu v NRS Sacco Society Limited (Cause E422 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1488 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1488/eng@2023-06-13

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