Njera & another (Suing as the Archbishop and Trustees of St Meshack’s Fellowship Church (HERA)) v Ochola & another (Cause 4 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 474 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan church dispute was thrown out because the High Court had already judged it and paying pastors an honorarium doesn't make them employees.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ELRC could assume jurisdiction after the High Court had delivered a judgment declining jurisdiction suo moto
The Court could not proceed to hear the parties and deliver a second judgment where the High Court had already rendered a judgment.
The file was transferred to the ELRC after the High Court had delivered a judgment rather than a ruling. Once judgment had been delivered, the ELRC could not hear the parties afresh and render its own judgment on the same cause, as that would amount to a second judgment in the same matter.
Whether the cause of action disclosed an employer/employee relationship
The cause of action as pleaded did not advert to an employer and employee relationship, and none of the parties raised that issue before the High Court; the reliefs sought did not suggest such a relationship.
The pleadings and reliefs concerned interference with church operations, collection of tithes and offerings, return of church regalia, suspension of clergy and retirement age — all framed under the church constitution, not under a contract of employment. Neither party pleaded or litigated an employment relationship in the High Court.
Whether payment of honoraria established an employment relationship
Payment of a salary or wages is the cornerstone of an employment relationship; an honorarium alone cannot establish one.
Applying the various tests (control, integration/organisation, fourfold, multiple), the Court noted that payment of salary or wages is an essential element of employment. The only evidence on record was that the Respondents earned honoraria, which, without more, does not satisfy that essential element.
Procedural fairness of the High Court declining jurisdiction suo moto
The High Court declined jurisdiction suo moto without giving the parties an opportunity to submit on the question.
The Court observed that despite declining jurisdiction on its own motion, the High Court did not afford the parties a chance to make submissions on the jurisdictional question, a procedural concern noted though it did not alter the outcome.
Legal principles established
#- A court with subordinate jurisdiction cannot proceed to deliver a second judgment where the High Court has already rendered a judgment in the matter.
- Payment of a salary or wages is an essential of an employment relationship; payment of an honorarium alone cannot establish an employer/employee relationship.
Court orders
#- 1.The Court declines jurisdiction over the dispute
- 2.These proceedings are terminated with no order on costs
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12(1) and (7) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njera & another (Suing as the Archbishop and Trustees of St Meshack’s Fellowship Church (HERA)) v Ochola & another (Cause 4 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 474 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (Cause transferred from the High Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/474/eng@2024-02-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.