Employment and Labour Relations Court
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtPetitions
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtPetitions
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
The appellant appealed against the dismissal of her suit alleging unfair termination by the respondent, seeking compensation and terminal dues. The court found that the appellant did not desert her employment but was suspended on half pay due to the respondent's suspension letter dated 9th April 2020, which was later suspended from 1st June 2020 due to financial constraints caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The court held that the suspension did not constitute constructive dismissal or desertion, as the intended disciplinary process was delayed by the pandemic, and the appellant terminated her contract by filing suit on 6th October 2020. The court awarded her full salary from 1st June 2020 to 6th October 2020 and half salary for April and May 2020, but dismissed her claim for unlawful termination and damages.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
The appellant moved for dismissal of the respondent’s forgotten suit for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The trial court dismissed the motion, directing the suit to proceed to pre-trial conference and hearing within six weeks. The appellant appealed, arguing the respondent’s three-year delay was inordinate and inexcusable, while the respondent claimed the appellant was precluded from filing the motion due to lack of service. The court found the delay inordinate and inexcusable due to the respondent’s admission of forgetting the suit, and the appellant was not precluded from filing the motion as it was a party to the suit.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
The court considered whether the appellant was the respondent’s employer or a paymaster for the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure. The appeal challenged the lower court’s finding that the appellant was the employer and liable for unlawful termination. The court found the appellant was a paymaster, not the employer, as the Ministry terminated the contract, leading to redundancy. The court rejected the respondent’s claim for compensation due to the appellant’s agency relationship with the Ministry and the Arbitral Award confirming the Ministry’s liability.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
The court dismissed the respondent’s Notice of Motion seeking urgent certification, ex-parte hearing, stay of execution, setting aside the March 8, 2024 judgment, and other orders. The respondent claimed it was unaware of proceedings until served with execution documents on November 29, 2024, but the court found it had been served with initial pleadings and entered appearance in the lower court. The court held the motion failed due to the respondent’s admission of service and waiver of rights, as it had been duly served with appeal documents and failed to participate. The motion was dismissed with costs.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
The court granted an application for stay of proceedings in the Chief Magistrates Court at Meru Employment and Labour Relations Court case No. E005 of 2024 between Stanley Mbaabu M’mbui and Flamingo Horticulture Kenya Limited, pending the hearing and determination of an appeal against the lower court's dismissal of the motion. The applicant sought stay to prevent the lower court proceedings from proceeding while the appeal was pending, arguing that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay was not granted. The court found that the appeal was not frivolous and that the application for stay was filed expeditiously, meeting the criteria for granting stay under the principles outlined in William Odhiambo Ramogi v Attorney General (2019) eKLR.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
The court upheld the termination of the appellant's employment as lawful and fair, finding that the appellant was served with a show cause letter on 19th October 2020 and invited to a disciplinary hearing on 23rd October 2020, but she refused to acknowledge the letter or attend the hearing. The court determined that the termination followed fair procedure and was for a valid reason (repeated misconduct), and the appellant's claim for unfair termination was dismissed with costs.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtPetitions
The court dismissed the respondent's Notice of Motion seeking to set aside court orders issued on 13th November 2024, as the respondent was duly served with the court process but failed to respond to the petitioners' motion. The court found the impugned interim orders regular because the respondents were served and attended court through their counsel, who sought 21 days to file a response before the hearing. The respondent's argument that the union was financially unable to comply with the orders due to TSC's failure to remit dues was not relevant to the procedural irregularity. The court held that the respondent was not condemned unheard as they had been served and had the opportunity to respond, thus the motion was dismissed with costs.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtPetitions
This ruling addresses the 2nd respondent's preliminary objection to a public interest litigation petition filed by the petitioner on behalf of residents of Isiolo County. The court found that the petitioner lacked locus standi to bring the petition as he is not an employer, employee, or party directly involved in the employment relationship, and had not met the public interest litigation threshold under Article 22 of the Constitution. The court also noted that the petitioner failed to file submissions opposing the preliminary objection despite being notified, and the 2nd respondent's objection was allowed with costs declined due to the petition being a public interest litigation. The court ruled that the petition should be struck out as the petitioner lacked jurisdictional standing and did not demonstrate sufficient interest in the labour relationship to invoke the court's jurisdiction.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
The appellant appealed against the dismissal of their suit for being time barred, arguing that the trial court erred in law and fact by dismissing the suit as statute barred despite having granted leave to file out of time. The court determined that the cause of action arose in 2004 when the appellant received the dismissal letter, and under section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, the limitation period was six years, expiring on 8th October 2010. The court held that the suit was statute barred as it was filed after the limitation period lapsed, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to extend the limitation period. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtPetitions
The court held that the petitioners' constitutional rights were infringed by the respondents' actions, including non-payment of salaries and casual employment for over five years. The court found the petitioners had not exhausted internal appeal mechanisms under section 77 of the County Governments Act, which requires appealing to the Public Service Commission before court action. The court dismissed the petition with costs to the respondents, ruling that jurisdiction was ousted by the PSC's exclusive authority over employment disputes under the County Governments Act and the Public Service Commission Act.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtAppeals
The court granted a stay of execution pending appeal for the respondent (Embu County Government) to deposit Kshs. 4,831,525 in a joint interest-earning account within 45 days, ensuring the appellant (Charles Muriithi Njoka) could not be reinstated without the appeal being rendered nugatory. The court found the application met the legal threshold under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, as the delay in filing was not unreasonable and the risk of the appeal becoming nugatory due to reinstatement was substantial. The court ordered the respondent to provide security to balance the competing interests, avoiding the risk of the decretal sum being lost if the appeal succeeded.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relations CourtPetitions
The court addressed a petition by ABDI ADAN against the INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION (IEBC) regarding constitutional violations and disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner alleged that the IEBC improperly constituted a disciplinary committee, violated Articles 41, 47, 50, and 236 of the Constitution, and unlawfully demoted him without due process. The court found the disciplinary proceedings unconstitutional due to improper quorum and misapplication of the Commission Disciplinary Committee (CDC) instead of the HRMAC for staff in Job Grade 5 and below, as per the IEBC HR Manual. The court ordered reinstatement, restoration of rank, salary, and benefits, and restrained further disciplinary actions.