Muthungu v Registered Trustees of the Anglican Church of Kenya (Cause E090 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2832 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court struck out a clergyman's case because he sued before finishing the Anglican Church's internal appeal process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prematurity of the suit relative to internal dispute resolution mechanisms
The Cause was struck out because the Claimant instituted court proceedings while his appeal to the Archbishop was pending and before the internal mechanisms under the church constitutions were exhausted
The church constitution provided for dispute resolution: the Claimant was notified of allegations, appeared before the Diocesan Pastoral Care Committee, received a notice of intention to withdraw his licence, and was informed of a right of appeal to the Archbishop, who was expected to appoint a Commission of Enquiry. He appealed on 9 January 2025 but filed suit on 12 February 2025, a period too short to allow the Archbishop to appoint the Commission. He neither sought leave nor showed exceptional circumstances under section 9(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
Existence of an employer-employee relationship with the Respondent
The court declined to determine the issue at the preliminary stage because the question required evidence not yet before the Court
The Respondent argued there was no employer-employee relationship, contending any such relationship would be with the Diocese of Mt Kenya South registered under the Societies Act. The court held that resolving an employment relationship requires presentation and interrogation of evidence which had not yet taken place, so the jurisdictional question could not be decided on the Motion.
Sustainability of the Cause
It would not serve the prudent use of judicial time to sustain the Cause, since the form of proceedings following the appeal could not be foreseen
Because the Claimant's appeal remained pending before the Archbishop, the court could not predict what proceedings might follow the Commission's determination. Sustaining a premature Cause would waste judicial time, justifying striking it out.
Legal principles established
#- Determination of the existence of an employment relationship requires interrogation of evidence not yet presented where a preliminary challenge is mounted
- A litigant must exhaust available internal dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the Court, absent leave or exceptional circumstances
- A court should not second-guess the outcome of proceedings before an internal body constituted to hear a dispute
Court orders
#- 1.The Cause is struck out on the ground that the Claimant moved the Court prematurely before allowing the internal dispute resolution avenues to be concluded
- 2.No order on costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (jurisdiction invoked by the Claimant; the court found it premature to assume jurisdiction absent exhaustion of internal dispute resolution mechanisms)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muthungu v Registered Trustees of the Anglican Church of Kenya (Cause E090 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2832 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2832/eng@2025-10-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.