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 E489 of 2023· [2024] KEELRC 2034 (KLR)

Sheffield Steel Systems Limited v Okumu (Cause E489 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2034 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 July 2024
1,084 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

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a Memorandum of Claim dated 15th June 2023, the Claimant sued the Respondent for Kshs.146,085,932.15 said to have been lost through the Respondent's alleged unlawful actions. The Respondent filed a Response and later a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 12th February 2024, contending that the suit, founded on an appointment letter of 1st November 2004 and an agreement of 4th September 2009 containing an arbitration clause (clause 16), could not be heard by the court in the first instance. The court, Ndolo J, restated the classic definition of a Preliminary Objection in Mukisa Biscuit and applied the Court of Appeal authorities (Agip v Kibutu and Eunice Soko Mlagui) holding that an application for stay under Section 6 of the Arbitration Act cannot be disguised as a preliminary point of law, and that referral to arbitration must be sought at the time of entering appearance, filing a defence amounting to acknowledgement of the claim. The court noted the Respondent had filed a Notice of Appointment, Response, Witness Statement and List of Documents before raising the objection, and that no referral application was on record. The objection was held to be ill advised and was overruled with costs in the cause. The claim itself remains pending for determination; this ruling disposes only of the Preliminary Objection.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an arbitration clause renders the court bereft of jurisdiction such that a Preliminary Objection may dispose of the suit

Holding

No. An arbitration agreement does not deny the court jurisdiction; the correct route is a stay application under Section 6(1), which must be made at the time of entering appearance or before acknowledging the claim. The Respondent filed a Response, witness statement and documents before raising the objection, and made no referral application.

Reasoning

The court applied the definition of a Preliminary Objection in Mukisa Biscuit and the Court of Appeal decisions in Agip and Eunice Soko Mlagui holding that a stay application cannot be disguised as a preliminary point of law. Section 6(1) fixes a strict timing requirement; filing a defence is an acknowledgement of claim. The Respondent breached the timelines and invoked a procedure unknown in law, so the objection was ill advised and overruled.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A Preliminary Objection cannot be used as a disguise for an application for stay of proceedings pending arbitration under Section 6 of the Arbitration Act
  • Filing a defence constitutes acknowledgement of a claim within the meaning of Section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act, and a party must seek referral to arbitration at the time of entering appearance or before such acknowledgement
  • An arbitration agreement does not oust a court's jurisdiction; it merely affords a defence in the nature of a stay application

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent's Preliminary Objection dated 12th February 2024 is overruled
  2. 2.Costs of the Preliminary Objection to the Claimant, costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Arbitration ActSection 6(1)
  • Arbitration ActSection 6(2)
  • Arbitration ActSection 6(3)
  • Arbitration Act No. 4 of 1995clause 16 of employment agreement reference

Cases cited (5)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Co. Ltd
    (1969) EA 696
  • Agip (K) Ltd v Kibutu
    [1981] eKLR
  • Eunice Soko Mlagui v Suresh Parmar & 4 others
    [2017] eKLR
  • Charles Njogu Lofty v Bedouin Enterprises Ltd
    CA No. 253 of 2003
  • Lipa Later Limited v Wanini
    (Cause E750 of 2023) [2023] KELRC (KLR) (4 December 2023) (Ruling)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over a Memorandum of Claim; ruling on a Notice of Preliminary Objection invoking Section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sheffield Steel Systems Limited v Okumu (Cause E489 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2034 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No E489 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2034/eng@2024-07-25

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