James Kariuki Ng'ang'a v Bhachu Industries Limited & Directorate of Occupational Health and Safety Services
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court in Machakos confirmed it can hear work injury cases regardless of county, dismissing an employer's jurisdictional objection.
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 Court has territorial/geographical jurisdiction to hear and determine the application, the cause of action having allegedly arisen in Nairobi County
- 2.Whether the preliminary objection meets the Mukisa Biscuit threshold of a pure point of law
Key legal issues
#Territorial jurisdiction of the ELRC Machakos station over a work injury (DOSH award) adoption application
The objection was not merited; the ELRC's jurisdiction is national and not confined to county boundaries.
The court held that its jurisdiction is donated by Article 162 of the Constitution and is not restricted to geographical boundaries. It also reasoned that determining the pending application in the interest of justice avoids shuttling the matter to another court, which would cause delay. The preliminary objection was therefore dismissed with costs in the application.
Whether the preliminary objection raised a pure point of law under the Mukisa Biscuit threshold
The court did not expressly rule on the Mukisa Biscuit threshold, proceeding instead to dispose of the jurisdiction question on its merits.
Although both parties extensively argued the Mukisa Biscuit test, the court's ruling did not make an express finding on whether the objection raised a pure point of law. It went directly to the jurisdictional question and found the objection unmerited, leaving the threshold issue unresolved.
Legal principles established
#- The ELRC's jurisdiction under Article 162 is not restricted to geographical boundaries.
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection is dismissed
- 2.Costs in the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution as read with Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
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.
Respectively, the jurisdiction of this court is donated by the constitution under article 162 of the constitution and is not restricted to geographical boundaries.
I find the preliminary objection is therefore not merited and is thus dismissed. Costs in the application.
Issues in the judgment
#Dates internally inconsistent: objection dated 12th January 2026 and Grounds of Opposition 30th March 2026, yet application dated 25th November 2024 in a 2025 file.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "James Kariuki Ng'ang'a v Bhachu Industries Limited & Directorate of Occupational Health and Safety Services", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC MISC. APPLICATION NO. E045 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2602/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.