Juma v Securkenya Group Ltd

3. The Respondent submitted that, pursuant to Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 10th June 2018, read together with Section 29(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act No. 20 of 2011, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and determine the Claimant's Memorandum of Claim. This position is reinforced by Section 9(b) of the Magistrate's Court Act, which confers jurisdiction on magistrates to hear and determine employment and labour relations claims within the pecuniary limits set under Section 7(1), pursuant to the jurisdiction conferred under Section 29 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. 4. It was submitted that it is common ground that this Court's jurisdiction is properly invoked only where an employee earns a gross salary above Kshs. 80,000, save where the claim, though below that threshold, raises constitutional issues arising out of employment. It is common ground that the Claimant has not moved the Court by way of a constitutional petition and has raised no constitutional issue. 5. It is the Respondent’s submission that the Court is duty-bound to uphold Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 10th June 2018 as read with Section 29(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. It urged the Court to uphold the Preliminary Objection and strike out the Claimant's suit in its entirety, with costs to the Respondent. Claimant’s Submissions 6. The Claimant submitted that Section 8(2) and (3) of the Magistrates' Court Act, Cap 10, bars magistrates' courts from hearing human rights violations under the Constitution, save for violations of freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment freedom from slavery or servitude enshrined under Article 25(a) and (b). 7. It is the Claimant’s submission that she has led a discrimination claim under Article 27 of the Constitution, and that such a claim can only be heard by the Employment and Labour Relations Court, since Section 8(2) and (3) of the Magistrates' Court Act bars the magistrates' court from hearing it. 8. She submitted that the Respondent had, for its part, focused on the Claimant's salary of Kshs. 15,000, which would place the claim for unlawful summary dismissal within the magistrates' court's jurisdiction, were it not for the discrimination allegation. 9. It was argued that if the Court allowed the Respondent's preliminary objection, it would dismiss the discrimination claim without the Claimant being heard, and would in eect arrogate to the magistrates' court a jurisdiction to hear human rights violations beyond that permitted under Section 8(2) of the Magistrates' Court Act, which this Court cannot do. 10. I have considered all the averments and submissions of the parties herein. The applicant has averred that the claim raises serious constitutional breaches which the magistrates court lack jurisdiction to entertain and that the ELRC is the only court with jurisdiction to handle. 11. I have looked at the prayers sought in the claim. I do not see any prayer for any constitutional breach. Even from the demand notice sent to the respondents counsel, there is no indication that the claimants were demanding any compensation for constitutional breaches as submitted herein. 12. It is therefore true that this claim as led should be before the lower court and not in this court and therefore the preliminary objection has merit. I proceed to strike out this claim accordingly. There will be no order of costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY 2026. HELLEN WASILWA https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2114/eng@2026-07-22 2

page 2 of 3

JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2114/eng@2026-07-22 3

page 3 of 3