Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherEmployment and Labour Relations Cause E488 of 2025· [2026] KEELRC 2539 (KLR)

Jalango v Mansingh

Employment and Labour Relations Court
24 September 2026
BMB. O. M. Manani
1,514 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant sued the Respondent alleging that the Respondent wrote a defamatory letter to Stanbic Bank on 26th October 2022 stating that the Claimant had been suspended from duty and debarred from being a signatory to an account, allegedly in the course of an employment relationship. The Respondent filed an application dated 18th November 2025 seeking a finding that the court lacks jurisdiction under section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, contending that the dispute was a defamation claim for the High Court and that no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties. The Claimant opposed, invoking section 2 of the Employment Act to argue that the Respondent, as a manager of his employer, stood in the position of an employer, and that the court has jurisdiction over claims arising from and ancillary to employment, including defamation. Separately, the Claimant applied for the cause to be prosecuted as an undefended suit because the Respondent had not filed a defence. The court held that the jurisdictional objection rested on whether an employment relationship existed - a mixed question of law and fact that could not be resolved at a preliminary stage, particularly since the contract of service on the file had not been formally tendered in evidence. It declined the Respondent's application and directed that the jurisdiction question be determined after full trial. It also declined the undefended-suit application, holding that the Respondent's entry of appearance and jurisdiction objection signified an intention to defend, and allowed him 7 days to file a defence. Costs of both applications were to abide the results of the trial.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the jurisdictional objection was a pure point of law

Holding

No; the objection is anchored on both law and fact and required pleadings and trial evidence

Reasoning

The Respondent disputed jurisdiction on the basis that no employment relationship existed. The court held that this factual question could not be conclusively resolved at a preliminary stage, especially where the contract of service on the file had not been formally tendered in evidence, and directed that jurisdiction be determined after full trial.

p. 2
02

Whether the suit should proceed as an undefended cause

Holding

No; the Respondent's entry of appearance and jurisdiction objection signified an intention to defend

Reasoning

Although the Respondent did not file a defence within time, he entered appearance and raised a jurisdictional objection, which the court read as an intention to defend. Locking him out at that stage would be inappropriate; he was instead given 7 days to file a defence.

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a jurisdictional objection rests on the existence of an employment relationship, a mixed question of law and fact, it must be determined at trial, not as a preliminary point

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent's application dated 18th November 2025 is declined
  2. 2.The court declines to determine whether there was an employment relationship between the parties at this preliminary stage before examining trial evidence
  3. 3.The question of jurisdiction anchored on whether the parties had an employment relationship shall be determined after full trial
  4. 4.The Claimant's application dated 19th September 2025 is declined since the Respondent has signified an intention to defend the suit
  5. 5.The Respondent is granted the opportunity to file and serve a defence within 7 days of the ruling, failing which the Claimant may set down the suit for hearing as an undefended cause
  6. 6.Costs of the two applications shall abide the results of the trial
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (jurisdiction objection); section 2 of the Employment Act invoked by the Claimant

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jalango v Mansingh", Case Analysis (2026). Employment and Labour Relations Cause E488 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2539/eng@2026-09-24

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