Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No E009 of 2024· [2024] KEELRC 1407 (KLR)

Ojode v Kenya National Shipping Line Limited & another (Cause E009 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1407 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
23 May 2024
2,086 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that state corporation employees can go straight to the ELRC with employment disputes without first exhausting internal or Public Service Commission remedies.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The respondents filed a notice of preliminary objection dated 15 April 2024 contending that the claimant's amended claim and application of 26 March 2024 offended section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act because the claimant failed to exhaust remedies under the Public Service Commission Act and the ELRC Act, the 1st respondent being a state corporation whose employment disputes fall within the public service under Articles 232, 233, 234 and 260 of the Constitution, making the ELRC an appellate and not a court of first instance. The claimant, a former accountant and long-serving acting managing director of the 1st respondent facing a surcharge following an Auditor General audit, opposed the objection, relying on Article 162(2)(a) and section 12 of the ELRC Act and asserting the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The court framed the issue as whether it had jurisdiction given Section 15(1) and (4) of the ELRC Act, the cited Public Service Commission Act provisions, and constitutional articles. Holding that an employment relationship existed and that the ELRC is the primary forum for such disputes, the court ruled that Section 15 ELRC Act mechanisms are invoked only after filing and do not divest the court of original jurisdiction; that unfair labour practices fall within the court's exclusive jurisdiction; and that state corporation employees are not governed by the County Government Act appeal regime to the Public Service Commission. The preliminary objections were dismissed and the claim set down for hearing on the merits.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether Section 15 of the ELRC Act requires exhaustion of ADR/internal mechanisms before filing suit

Holding

No; Section 15 mechanisms operate post-filing and do not divest the court of original jurisdiction.

Reasoning

The court held that the motions of Section 15 come alive only after parties are in court. Upon filing, parties may seek ADR and report back, and the court may stay proceedings under Section 15(4) for conciliation or mediation. These mechanisms do not deny the court its original jurisdiction over employment disputes.

p. 4
02

Whether the Public Service Commission Act sections cited oust the ELRC's jurisdiction

Holding

No; unfair labour practices are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ELRC.

Reasoning

The dispute concerns alleged unfair labour practices arising from a surcharge, which the court held fall within its exclusive jurisdiction and cannot be resolved through Sections 59, 60 or 74 of the Public Service Commission Act outside the court.

p. 4
03

Whether state corporation employees must first appeal to the Public Service Commission under the County Government Act regime

Holding

No; the Hulbhai Gedi Abdille reasoning on Section 77 of the County Government Act does not apply to state corporation employees.

Reasoning

The claimant is an employee of a state corporation, not a county government. Employees of state corporations are not regulated under the County Government Act's appeal regime to the Public Service Commission, so that authority was distinguishable.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Section 15 of the ELRC Act is engaged only once parties are before the court; it does not oust the court's original jurisdiction by requiring prior exhaustion of ADR mechanisms.
  • Where an employment relationship exists, the ELRC is the primary forum for employment and labour disputes.
  • The mandate of the Public Service Commission, though constitutional, must be applied in the context of each case; employees of state corporations are not regulated under the County Government Act appeal regime.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Objections dated 15 April 2024 dismissed
  2. 2.The court will hear the claim on the merits

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Fair Administrative Action Actsection 9(2)
  • Public Service Commission Actsections 59, 60, 61, 74(1), 75(1)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Actsections 12, 12(1), 12(2), 12(5), 15, 15(1), 15(4)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 159(2)(c), 162(2)(a), 232, 232(2)(b), 233, 234, 243, 260
  • State Corporations ActSection 3
  • County Government ActSection 77

Cases cited (5)

  • Kenya Tea Growers Association & 2 others v The National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees & 13 others (Petition E004 & E002 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2024] KESC 3 (KLR)
    [2024] KESC 3 (KLR) (21 February 2024)
  • Teachers Service Commission (TSC) v Kenya Union of Teachers (KNUT) & 3 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Secretary, County Public Service Board & another v Hulbhai Gedi Abdille
    [2017] eKLR
  • Katiba Institute & another v Attorney General & another
    [2020] eKLR
  • Manyara Muchui Anthony v Communications Authority of Kenya & 3 Others
    [2022] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution read with Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ojode v Kenya National Shipping Line Limited & another (Cause E009 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1407 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No E009 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1407/eng@2024-05-23

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