[2024] KEELRC 666 (KLR)
The Court held that the claimant filed his claim in the wrong forum, as his gross monthly salary was below the Kshs 80,000 threshold set by Gazette Notice Number 6024 of 2018. The claimant's reliance on constitutional provisions and the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act did not override the specific...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELRC 666 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: George Ehenzo; Respondent: Cosmos Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E339 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- claim struck out for want of jurisdiction
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Employment Courts, Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Redundancy Dismissal, Unfair Termination
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
George Ehenzo
Applicant
Cosmos Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction to hear claims where the claimant's gross monthly salary is below Kshs 80,000 as set by Gazette Notice Number 6024 of 2018.
- 2 Whether the claim should be struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the claimant filed his claim in the wrong forum, as his gross monthly salary was below the Kshs 80,000 threshold set by Gazette Notice Number 6024 of 2018. The claimant's reliance on constitutional provisions and the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act did not override the specific pecuniary jurisdictional limit established by the Gazette Notice. The Court found that the claimant should have filed his claim before the designated Chief Magistrate’s Court, and his grounds of opposition lacked merit. Consequently, the claim was struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
claim struck out for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
- No order on the costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Ehenzo v Cosmos Limited (Cause E339 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 666 (KLR) (15 March 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELRC 666 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause E339 of 2023
J Rika, J
March 15, 2024
Between
George Ehenzo
Claimant
and
Cosmos Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Claimant filed this Claim on 27th April 2023.
2. He states that he was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent, on 15th July 2022. He seeks compensation and damages for what he deems to have been an unfair and unlawful redundancy exercise.
3. At paragraph 4 of his Statement of Claim, he states that he earned a monthly basic salary of Kshs 55,769, and house allowance of Kshs 8,923, as of the date of termination. His gross monthly salary was Kshs 64,692.
4. The Respondent has raised preliminary objection based on Gazette Notice Number 6024 of 10th June 2018, which sets the jurisdiction of this Court to claims where an Employee earned a gross monthly salary of Kshs 80,000 and above at the time of termination.
5. Claims below this salary, arising after the Gazette Notice, are filed and heard before designated Chief Magistrate’s Courts.
6. The Respondent prays that the Claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction, with costs to the Respondent.
7. The Claimant filed Grounds of Opposition, dated 11th October 2023. He insists that the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine his Claim, invoking Section 12 of the E&LRCAct and Articles 48 and 162 [2] [a] of the Constitution.
8. It was agreed by the Parties to have the preliminary objection considered and determined on the strength of Written Submissions. Parties confirmed filing and exchange of these Submissions, at the last mention before the Court, on 5th December 2023.
The Court Finds: - 9. The Claimant seems to have filed his Claim before this Court in error, ignorance or disregard of Gazette Notice Number 6024 of 2018.
10. Instead of owning up to his error, and seeking to move his Claim to the proper jurisdiction, he opted to stand his ground, and advance before the Court, unpersuasive Grounds of Opposition, arguing that the Court and the Chief Magistrate’s Court both have jurisdiction in his matter. He does not suggest in his argument, what was the purpose of the Gazette Notice under discussion.
11. He stretches his argument to constitutional mandate of the Court, citing Articles 48 and 162 of the Constitution, none of which deals with the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts.
12. He ought to have conceded to his error and sought to file his Claim in the proper jurisdiction, instead of wasting time and risking time-bar, at the Chief Magistrate’s Court.
13. His Grounds of Opposition have no merit whatsoever. Gazette Notice 6024 of 2018 clearly sets the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts, in employment disputes. The pecuniary delimitation, is not an issue, like the material and personal jurisdiction of the Courts, which should exercise the Parties’ legal minds and consume Judicial time.
14. It is ordered:-a.The Claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.b.No order on the costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND RELEASED TO THE PARTIES ELECTRONICALLY AT NAIROBI, UNDER PRACTICE DIRECTION 6[2] OF THE ELECTRONIC CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE DIRECTIONS, 2020, THIS 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2024. JAMES RIKAJUDGE