[2025] KEHC 7913 (KLR)
The High Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal because the underlying dispute related to employment and labour relations, which falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court as provided by Article 162(2) of the Constitution and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 7913 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Adi Gift Limited; Respondent: Gladys Nyatenga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 4 June 2025
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 297 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal struck out for want of jurisdiction
- Judges
- WM Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of High Court, Employment Relationship, Workplace Injury, Protective Work Gear
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Adi Gift Limited
Appellant
Gladys Nyatenga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals arising from employment and labour relations disputes.
- 2 Whether the appeal was properly filed before the High Court given the subject matter relates to employment and labour relations.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal because the underlying dispute related to employment and labour relations, which falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court as provided by Article 162(2) of the Constitution and the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. The court cited binding precedent that when a court lacks jurisdiction, it must immediately cease to act on the matter. Consequently, the appeal was struck out as incompetent, and costs were awarded to the respondent.
Court Disposition
appeal struck out for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The appeal is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
- The respondent is awarded the costs of the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Adi Gift Limited v Nyatenga (Civil Appeal 297 of 2017) [2025] KEHC 7913 (KLR) (Civ) (4 June 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 7913 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Civil
Civil Appeal 297 of 2017
WM Musyoka, J
June 4, 2025
Between
Adi Gift Limited
Appellant
and
Gladys Nyatenga
Respondent
(Appeal from judgement and decree, by Hon. EK Usui, Senior Principal Magistrate, SPM, in Milimani CMCCC No. 585 of 2011, of 17th May 2017)
Judgment
1. The suit, at the primary court, was filed by the appellant against the respondent. Her case was that the respondent was her employer, and that she was injured in the course of the employment. She accused the respondent of failing to provide her with a safe working environment, to provide her with protective work gear, and assigning to her a task that was risky without warning her of the attendant dangers. The respondent denied liability, inclusive of the employment relationship.
2. A trial was conducted. The appellant testified, and called a witness. She asserted the employer-employee relationship between her and the respondent, which she testified began in 2000. The respondent called two witnesses. Both admitted that the appellant worked for the respondent.
3. There is no doubt that the suit turned on an employment relationship between the appellant and the respondent. The dispute turned on conditions of work, and, therefore, it was an employment and labour relations suit.
4. The Constitution, at Article 162(2)(a), envisages a court, with the status of the High Court, with jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to employment and labour relations. That court is established under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Cap 8E, Laws of Kenya. At Article 165(5)(b) of the Constitution, it is stipulated that the High Court shall not exercise jurisdiction in respect of matters that fall under Article 162(2), reserved for the courts contemplated under that Article.
5. Given that the dispute in Milimani CMCCC No. 585 of 2011 turned on matters that related to employment and labour relations, and the Constitution, in Articles 162(2) and 165(5), has taken away jurisdiction from the High Court, over such matters I, sitting at the High Court, would have no jurisdiction to sit on an appeal which turns on such matters. That jurisdiction lies elsewhere, and the instant appeal should have been filed there.
6. The Owners of Moor Vessel “Lillian S” vs. Caltex Oil Kenya Limited [1989] KLR 1653 [1989] eKLR (Nyarangi, Masime & Kwach, JJA) prescribed what a court ought to do, when it turns out that it has no jurisdiction over a matter placed before it. It downs it tools. It freezes its hand. It stops handling. That is what I shall do.
7. The appeal is filed before a court without jurisdiction. It is incompetent. I hereby strike it out. See Equity Bank Limited vs. Bruce Mutie Mutuku t/a Diani Tour Travel [2016] eKLR (Makhandia, Ouko & M’Inoti, JJA) and Phoenix of EA Assurance Company Limited vs. SM Thiga t/a Newspaper Service [2019] eKLR (Karanja, Gatembu & Sichale JJA). The respondent is entitled to costs, for being dragged to the wrong court. The respondents shall have the costs of the incompetent appeal. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED, VIA EMAIL, DATED AND SIGNED IN CHAMBERS, AT BUSIA, ON THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2025. WM MUSYOKAJUDGEMr. Arthur Etyang, Court Assistant, Busia.Ms. Caroline Oyusu, Court Assistant, Milimani, Nairobi.Ms. Azenga Alenga, Legal Researcher.AdvocatesMiss Kimani, instructed by AM Kimani & Company, Advocates for the appellant.Mr. Nzavi, instructed by Nzavi & Company, Advocates for the respondent.