Guo v Beijing Zhongji Jingu Integrated Housing Technology Co Limited & 2 others (Cause E328 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2507 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed it can freeze land to secure an unfair termination claim, dismissing a jurisdictional challenge.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Claimant's Application dated 23rd May 2023 seeking orders of inhibition over land, given that it is a specialised court established under Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution
- 2.Whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents' Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 8th June 2023 meets the threshold of a preliminary objection and should be allowed
- 3.Whether the interim orders issued on 30th May 2023 should be vacated for want of jurisdiction
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELRC over an application for inhibition orders against land where the underlying suit is for unfair termination
The preliminary objection was misplaced; the ELRC has jurisdiction because the suit is on employment and the inhibition is only ancillary security.
The Respondents assumed the suit concerned title to and occupation of land, which is the preserve of the ELC. However, the Court found the suit arises from the Claimant's employment and the relief sought over the property is ancillary security. The predominant purpose of the dispute is the employment relationship; the ELC itself cannot determine employment issues. Applying the predominant purpose test urged by the Claimant, the Court held the application properly before it and dismissed the objection with costs on the higher scale.
Whether the objection constituted a proper preliminary objection on a pure point of law
The Court treated it as raising a pure point of law on jurisdiction but found it without merit.
The parties invoked the Mukisa Biscuit threshold, and jurisdiction was the question raised; the Respondents relied on the constitutional demarcation between the specialised courts under Article 162(2), submitting the inhibition orders fell exclusively to the ELC. The Claimant relied on section 12 of the ELRC Act and the predominant purpose test. The Court resolved the jurisdictional question against the Respondents and dismissed the objection.
Legal principles established
#- Where a suit is predominantly an employment dispute, an ancillary relief touching on land (such as an inhibition to secure the claim) does not oust the ELRC's jurisdiction, since the ELC has no jurisdiction over employment issues.
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st and 2nd Respondents' Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 8th June 2023 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the preliminary objection are awarded to the Claimant on the higher scale
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya; sections 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act considered on jurisdictional demarcation
Relief refused
#Vacation of the court order issued on 30th May 2023
The preliminary objection lacked merit as the suit is one on employment with ancillary relief touching on property security; the Court did not lack jurisdiction
Costs
Costs of the preliminary objection awarded to the Claimant, on the higher scale
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The Claimant’s suit is on his employment with an ancillary relief being the security envisaged which impacts on the property in question. That can never be for the ELC as the Environment and Land Court does not have jurisdiction to determine employment issues.
As the objection is misplaced it is dismissed with costs to the Claimant with the costs being on the higher scale. It is so ordered.
orders of inhibition envisaged under section 68 of the Registration of Land Act are in the nature of prohibitory injunction and act to preserve the suit property just as an interlocutory injunction would do
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Guo v Beijing Zhongji Jingu Integrated Housing Technology Co Limited & 2 others (Cause E328 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2507 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2507/eng@2023-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.