Angule v Innovation for Poverty Action (Kenya) "IPA (K)" (Petition E082 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2682 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that employees earning under Kshs. 80,000 can still file constitutional rights petitions, because magistrates' courts cannot award compensation for rights violations.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the petition is trapped by the doctrine of constitutional avoidance as a disguised contractual employment dispute
- 2.Whether the Magistrates' Court, and not the ELRC, has jurisdiction given the petitioner's gross monthly pay of less than Kshs. 80,000.00 per Gazette Notice No. 6024
- 3.Whether the petition discloses a proper cause of action for violation of Bill of Rights provisions
Key legal issues
#Doctrine of constitutional avoidance
The objection fails because the petition pleads particulars of alleged rights violations beyond breach of the employment contract, so it is not a disguised contractual dispute at this stage
The court examined the pleaded case and found specific allegations of unlawful expropriation of intellectual property, discrimination on multiple grounds, damage to professional reputation and deprivation of livelihood, together with prayers for declarations of violations of Articles 27 and 41. Because such particulars go beyond the contract of service, the petition passes the constitutional avoidance test and can only be tested at the hearing.
Jurisdiction conferred by Gazette Notice No. 6024 versus constitutional jurisdiction
Although the petitioner earns under Kshs. 80,000.00 and the matter would ordinarily lie before the Magistrates' Court, she was entitled to move the ELRC because the Magistrates' Court cannot entertain claims for compensation for violation of Bill of Rights rights
The court acknowledged that by Gazette Notice No. 6024 the Magistrates' Court handles employment claims where gross monthly pay does not exceed Kshs. 80,000.00. However, section 8(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act expressly excludes jurisdiction over compensation claims for violation of constitutional rights, so the claim for infraction of fundamental rights and freedoms could only be brought as a constitutional petition in this Court.
Legal principles established
#- A petition survives a constitutional avoidance objection where the pleadings set out particulars of alleged violations of the Bill of Rights going beyond a mere contract of service
- A magistrates' court has no jurisdiction to hear claims for compensation for violation of rights or fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of preliminary objection dated 18.10.2024 is dismissed with costs in the cause
- 2.Parties to take directions for further steps towards expeditious determination of the petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Concurrent jurisdiction of the ELRC under the Constitution and the Employment Act, with reference to Gazette Notice No. 6024 (Vol. CXX No. 74) of 22.06.2018 and section 8(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, Cap 10
Relief refused
#Striking out/dismissal of the petition as sought in the preliminary objection
The petition on its face discloses a proper cause of action for violation of Bill of Rights provisions and the Magistrates' Court cannot hear claims for compensation for violation of constitutional rights
Costs
Preliminary objection dismissed with costs in the cause
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.
on the face of the pleadings, a proper cause of action for violation of rights has been pleaded and until the petition is heard, it passes the test and is not trapped by the doctrine of constitutional avoidance
Nothing in this Act may be construed as conferring jurisdiction on a Magistrates Court to hear and determine claims for compensation for loss or damage sufiered in consequence of a violation, infringement, denial of a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights.
the notice of preliminary objection dated 18.10.2024 is dismissed with costs in the cause and parties to take directions for further steps towards expeditious determination of the petition
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the notice of preliminary objection as dated 03.07.2024 in the opening paragraph but as dated 18.10.2024 in the concluding orders
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Angule v Innovation for Poverty Action (Kenya) "IPA (K)" (Petition E082 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2682 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Petition dated 29.05.2024 (ELRC Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2682/eng@2024-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.