1. The Applicant, Gilbert Turgut , moved this court through a notice of motion dated 25 th September 2025 seeking the following reliefs;
a) THAT the arbitral award dated 9.06.2025 made by GEORGE N. MBAYE (Arbitrator) be recognized and adopted as a judgment of this Honourable court.
b) THAT leave be granted to the applicant to enforce the said award as a decree of this Honourable court.
c) THAT the costs of this application be provided for.
2.The award arose from a fixed ‑ term employment contract between the Applicant and the Respondent, Southrift Hospital Ltd , which was terminated prematurely. The arbitrator found the termination unlawful and awarded compensation, gratuity, and costs.
3. The Respondent opposes the application through a Replying Affidavit sworn by its Chief Executive Officer, Danny Mwendwa . The Respondent alleges that the Applicant was terminated for gross misconduct, including sexual harassment and poor performance, and relies on Clause 10.2 of the contract which permits summary dismissal. The Respondent further contends that the arbitral proceedings were conducted outside the agreed seat of arbitration, that the arbitrator exceeded his mandate by awarding compensation for the unserved contract period, and that the award contains errors rendering it defective and unenforceable.
3 . Before delving into the merits of the application, the Court must address the issue of jurisdiction. Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution establishes the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) with exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to employment and labour relations. Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act further reinforces this mandate.
4. In United States International University (USIU) v Attorney General [2012] eKLR , the Court of Appeal held;
“It is clear that disputes relating to employment and labour relations are reserved for the specialized court established under Article 162(2)(a). The High Court lacks jurisdiction in such matters.”
5. This pronouncement makes it plain that the High Court cannot assume jurisdiction over employment disputes, even where they arise in the context of arbitration.
6. Similarly, in Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Kenya Agricultural Research Institute [2013] eKLR , the Court emphasized;
……… “The jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court is exclusive in matters relating to employment and labour relations. The High Court cannot usurp that jurisdiction.”
This underscores that enforcement of arbitral awards arising from employment contracts must be pursued before the ELRC.
7. The arbitral award in question arises directly from an employment contract and termination thereof. While Section 36 of the Arbitration Act empowers “the High Court” to recognize and enforce arbitral awards, the term “High Court” must be read in light of Article 162(2)(a). For employment disputes, the court of equal status seized of jurisdiction is the ELRC, not the general High Court.
8. The Respondent has raised weighty issues in its Replying Affidavit, including allegations of misconduct and questions about the scope of remedies. However, this Court cannot pronounce itself on those matters, as they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ELRC. To do so would amount to usurping the mandate of a specialized court established by the Constitution.
9. This Court therefore finds that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present application. The proper forum to entertain an application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award is the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
10. Accordingly, the application dated 25th September 2025 is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction. Each party to bear their own costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kericho this 26 th day of February, 2026.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the Presence of :-
C/Assistant – Rutoh
Miss Chebet holding brief for Koech for Respondent
4 | Page
a) THAT the arbitral award dated 9.06.2025 made by GEORGE N. MBAYE (Arbitrator) be recognized and adopted as a judgment of this Honourable court.
b) THAT leave be granted to the applicant to enforce the said award as a decree of this Honourable court.
c) THAT the costs of this application be provided for.
2.The award arose from a fixed ‑ term employment contract between the Applicant and the Respondent, Southrift Hospital Ltd , which was terminated prematurely. The arbitrator found the termination unlawful and awarded compensation, gratuity, and costs.
3. The Respondent opposes the application through a Replying Affidavit sworn by its Chief Executive Officer, Danny Mwendwa . The Respondent alleges that the Applicant was terminated for gross misconduct, including sexual harassment and poor performance, and relies on Clause 10.2 of the contract which permits summary dismissal. The Respondent further contends that the arbitral proceedings were conducted outside the agreed seat of arbitration, that the arbitrator exceeded his mandate by awarding compensation for the unserved contract period, and that the award contains errors rendering it defective and unenforceable.
3 . Before delving into the merits of the application, the Court must address the issue of jurisdiction. Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution establishes the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) with exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to employment and labour relations. Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act further reinforces this mandate.
4. In United States International University (USIU) v Attorney General [2012] eKLR , the Court of Appeal held;
“It is clear that disputes relating to employment and labour relations are reserved for the specialized court established under Article 162(2)(a). The High Court lacks jurisdiction in such matters.”
5. This pronouncement makes it plain that the High Court cannot assume jurisdiction over employment disputes, even where they arise in the context of arbitration.
6. Similarly, in Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Kenya Agricultural Research Institute [2013] eKLR , the Court emphasized;
……… “The jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court is exclusive in matters relating to employment and labour relations. The High Court cannot usurp that jurisdiction.”
This underscores that enforcement of arbitral awards arising from employment contracts must be pursued before the ELRC.
7. The arbitral award in question arises directly from an employment contract and termination thereof. While Section 36 of the Arbitration Act empowers “the High Court” to recognize and enforce arbitral awards, the term “High Court” must be read in light of Article 162(2)(a). For employment disputes, the court of equal status seized of jurisdiction is the ELRC, not the general High Court.
8. The Respondent has raised weighty issues in its Replying Affidavit, including allegations of misconduct and questions about the scope of remedies. However, this Court cannot pronounce itself on those matters, as they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ELRC. To do so would amount to usurping the mandate of a specialized court established by the Constitution.
9. This Court therefore finds that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present application. The proper forum to entertain an application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award is the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
10. Accordingly, the application dated 25th September 2025 is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction. Each party to bear their own costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kericho this 26 th day of February, 2026.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the Presence of :-
C/Assistant – Rutoh
Miss Chebet holding brief for Koech for Respondent
4 | Page