Chemwachar v Collindale Security Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E104 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 188 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court dismissed an employer's attempt to send an employment dispute to arbitration, because the claimed arbitration clause was never proven and the objection came too late.
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 Respondent's preliminary objection meets the threshold set out in the Mukisa Biscuits case
- 2.Whether, dependent on the finding on the first issue, the preliminary objection is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection satisfies the Mukisa Biscuits threshold
It does not: both grounds raise factual questions, including whether an arbitration clause was actually inserted in the Claimant's letter of employment
Applying Mukisa Biscuits, Oraro v Mbaja and the Akusala petition, the court held that a PO must be a pure point of law unblurred by facts. The claim that an arbitration clause existed in the letter of employment requires evidence; the Respondent had filed no defence or documents. Section 6 of the Arbitration Act also requires such objections before filing of a defence. Both grounds failed.
Whether the alleged arbitration clause ousts the court's jurisdiction and whether the doctrine of exhaustion applies
Both grounds were rejected for want of pure points of law and want of evidence of the arbitration clause
The court found no evidence that an arbitration clause was inserted in the Claimant's letter of employment, so jurisdiction could not be ousted on that basis. The exhaustion argument was likewise not a candidate for a preliminary objection as framed. The objection was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must raise pure points of law and must not be blurred by factual details requiring proof through evidence; where a court needs to investigate facts, the matter cannot be raised as a preliminary objection
- An objection under section 6 of the Arbitration Act must be raised at the earliest opportunity and before the defence is filed
Court orders
#- 1.Both grounds of the preliminary objection are dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- not stated in the judgment (employment and labour dispute before a subordinate court)
Relief refused
#Respondent's preliminary objection challenging the court's jurisdiction on account of an alleged arbitration clause and breach of the doctrine of exhaustion
The PO does not raise pure points of law and there was no evidence of an arbitration clause in the Claimant's letter of employment; the objection was also filed late, before any defence was filed
Costs
dismissed with no order as to costs (the judgment states 'with no order as to cots', an apparent typographical error)
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.
…a preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded or which arises by clear implication out of the pleadings and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit
Where a court needs to investigate facts, a matter cannot be raised as a preliminary objection.
Both grounds of the PO are therefore hereby found not to be candidates for a PO and are therefore dismissed with no order as to cots.
Issues in the judgment
#The date of the preliminary objection is inconsistent: the heading states it is dated 9th September 2025 while the body says 8/09/2025
Typographical error in the costs order ('cots' for 'costs')
Delivery date of 25th June 2026 post-dates the 2025 objection by roughly nine months; the day field before the date is blank ('THIS…25TH DAY')
The judgment does not disclose the case number, parties' names or the statute conferring jurisdiction on the court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chemwachar v Collindale Security Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E104 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 188 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/188/eng@2026-06-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.