Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherCause No E349 of 2023· [2024] KEELRC 871 (KLR)

Opamba v Imprimatur Company Limited (Cause E349 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 871 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 April 2024
JGJACOB GAKERI
1,300 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court kept its power to hear employment cases, but transferred this claim to a magistrate's court because the worker earned under Kshs 80,000 monthly.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent raised a preliminary objection dated 19th January 2024 arguing that, since the Claimant earned Kshs.70,000/= monthly at termination, the proper forum was the Chief Magistrates Court under Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 22nd June 2018, which designated magistrates of the rank of Senior Resident Magistrate and above to hear employment disputes where gross monthly pay does not exceed Kshs.80,000/=. The Claimant did not respond to the objection. Gakeri J traced the ELRC's jurisdiction to Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011, which confer exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes, citing Owners of Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' and Samuel Kamau Macharia on the foundational nature of jurisdiction. He held that the Gazette Notice, issued under Section 29 of the ELRC Act, merely offloaded certain employment disputes from the ELRC in response to case backlog but did not divest the court of its statutory jurisdiction; accordingly the court had jurisdiction to determine the suit. Applying Mukisa Biscuits, he dismissed the preliminary objection as failing the threshold. However, in a seemingly contradictory coda, the court noted that a reading of the reliefs and the letter of offer confirmed the salary fell within the Gazette Notice range, making the Chief Magistrates Court the proper forum, and directed the suit's transfer there. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The ruling was delivered virtually at Nairobi on 22nd April 2024.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the ELRC vis-à-vis Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 2018

Holding

The ELRC's jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(a) and Section 12 of the ELRC Act was not affected by the Gazette Notice, which only offloaded certain disputes to special magistrates

Reasoning

The court traced jurisdiction from Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the ELRC Act, which confer exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction on the ELRC over employment disputes. It construed Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 2018, issued under Section 29, as a case-management measure designating magistrates for disputes where monthly pay does not exceed Kshs.80,000/=, offloading cases due to backlog but leaving the ELRC's jurisdiction intact. It therefore held the court possessed jurisdiction.

p. 3
02

Whether the Respondent's preliminary objection should succeed

Holding

The objection was dismissed as it did not meet the Mukisa Biscuits threshold, since the court had jurisdiction

Reasoning

Applying the classic test in Mukisa Biscuits, the court found the objection rested on jurisdiction, a valid point of law, but having found the court did have jurisdiction, the objection failed and was dismissed. Yet, despite dismissing the objection, the court proceeded to direct transfer of the suit to the Chief Magistrate's Court Employment, effectively granting the substance of the objection on forum grounds.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The ELRC has unlimited original and appellate jurisdiction over employment and labour relations disputes; the Gazette Notice of 2018 merely offloaded certain disputes to designated magistrates but did not divest the ELRC of its jurisdiction under Section 12 of the ELRC Act
  • A preliminary objection must be a point of law pleaded or arising by clear implication from the pleadings capable of disposing of the suit

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent's Preliminary Objection dated 19th January, 2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.The suit be transferred to the Chief Magistrate's Court Employment for hearing and determination
  3. 3.Parties shall bear own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 162(2)(a)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011Section 12; Sections 29(3) and 4(b)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016Not specified
  • Labour Relations Act, 2007Not specified
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21)Section 1B
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 159(2)(d), 48

Cases cited (3)

  • Owners of Motor Vessel "Lillian S" V Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd (1989)
  • Samuel Kamau Macharia & another v Kenya Commercial Bank & 2 others (2012) eKLR
    (2012) eKLR
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 696
    (1969) EA 696
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Opamba v Imprimatur Company Limited (Cause E349 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 871 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No E349 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/871/eng@2024-04-22

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