Karimi v Bonfire Adventures & Events Ltd & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E032 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 950 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court struck out a housekeeper's rights claim because her complaint arose after her job had ended and against the wrong defendants.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the monetary jurisdiction conferred on the Magistrate's Court by section 29(3) of the ELRC Act and Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 2018 ousts the ELRC's jurisdiction over low-salary employment disputes
The objection on monetary jurisdiction fails; the Gazette Notice does not oust the ELRC's original and exclusive jurisdiction under section 12, and claims for violation of constitutional rights cannot be entertained by the Magistrate's Court in any event
Section 12 of the ELRC Act grants the court original and exclusive jurisdiction over all employment and labour disputes, including those within the Magistrate's Court's purview under the Gazette Notice. Further, Article 23(2) permits Magistrate's Courts to adjudicate constitutional rights claims only if Parliament has so legislated, and nothing in section 29 of the ELRC Act does so. Disputes raising constitutional rights violations fall exclusively to the ELRC where they arise from an employment and labour relation.
Whether the ELRC has jurisdiction where the cause of action arose after the employment relationship had terminated
No. The employment relation must have been subsisting when the cause of action arose; here the publications of 4th–5th December 2024 post-dated the termination of employment on 15th October 2024
Following the Court of Appeal in Public Service Commission v Cheruiyot and the Supreme Court in Mumba v Munyao, the trigger for the suit must arise during the subsistence of the employment relation. The Claimant's own pleadings and affidavit confirmed the employment ended on 15th October 2024 upon settlement, while the impugned publications occurred in December 2024. The court therefore had no jurisdiction.
Whether the Claimant had an employment relationship with the 2nd and 3rd Respondents
No. Her employer was the 1st Respondent company; the 2nd and 3rd Respondents were distinct legal persons and were not sued in any agency capacity
Relying on the separate legal personality of a limited liability company, the court held that being assigned duties at the 2nd and 3rd Respondents' residence did not make them her employers. The gravamen of the complaint was their personal conduct, not acts done as agents of the 1st Respondent, so no employment relation linked the disputants.
Whether the preliminary objection was a proper preliminary objection on a pure point of law
Yes. It challenged jurisdiction (a pure point of law) on facts not contested by the parties
Applying Mukisa Biscuit, the court found the objection challenged the court's jurisdiction, which is a pure point of law, and the factual basis of the second limb (the absence of a subsisting employment relation when the cause of action arose) was admitted by the Claimant and not contested by the 2nd Respondent.
Legal principles established
#- The ELRC's jurisdiction requires an employment and labour relation that was subsisting at the time the cause of action arose
- Employment disputes seeking redress for violation of constitutional rights fall within the ELRC's exclusive original jurisdiction and are removed from the Magistrate's Court notwithstanding the monetary jurisdiction Gazette Notice
- A limited liability company is a distinct legal entity separate from its shareholders, directors and employees; assigning an employee to work at a director's residence does not make the directors her employers
- A court without jurisdiction must not expand its mandate through judicial craft; a decision made without jurisdiction is a nullity
Court orders
#- 1.The suit and the application dated 21st January 2025 struck out for want of jurisdiction
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution and section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 (court found it lacked jurisdiction over the dispute)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karimi v Bonfire Adventures & Events Ltd & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E032 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 950 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/950/eng@2025-03-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.