[2023] KEELRC 3369 (KLR)
The court found that both the claimant and respondent pleaded a salary above Kshs. 80,000, which is the statutory threshold for the jurisdiction of Magistrate’s Courts in employment disputes. As such, the Magistrate’s Court lacked jurisdiction, and the Employment and Labour Relations Court was the proper forum. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELRC 3369 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Lydiah Wanjiku Githinji; Respondent: Topcare Lands Investment Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E844 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Preliminary objection dismissed; court affirms its jurisdiction.
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Courts, Salary Thresholds, Magistrates Court Powers, Employment Disputes
- 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
Lydiah Wanjiku Githinji
Applicant
Topcare Lands Investment 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 the claim given the claimant's salary exceeds the statutory threshold for Magistrate's Courts.
- 2 Whether the respondent's preliminary objection on jurisdiction is valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both the claimant and respondent pleaded a salary above Kshs. 80,000, which is the statutory threshold for the jurisdiction of Magistrate’s Courts in employment disputes. As such, the Magistrate’s Court lacked jurisdiction, and the Employment and Labour Relations Court was the proper forum. The respondent’s preliminary objection was therefore without basis and was overruled, with costs awarded to the claimant.
Court Disposition
Preliminary objection dismissed; court affirms its jurisdiction.
Orders
- The respondent’s preliminary objection is overruled.
- The claimant is awarded costs of the objection.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Githinji v Topcare Lands Investment Limited (Cause E844 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 3369 (KLR) (19 December 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELRC 3369 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause E844 of 2022
L Ndolo, J
December 19, 2023
Between
Lydiah Wanjiku Githinji
Claimant
and
Topcare Lands Investment Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. This ruling responds to the respondent’s preliminary objection, raised by notice dated January 6, 2023.
2. The substance of the objection is that this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim because the cause of action arose in Ruiru Sub-County, within the geographical jurisdiction of Ruiru Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court.
3. In her grounds of opposition dated October 16, 2023, the Claimant states that:a.The Preliminary Objection is misplaced and bad in law in as far as it alleges that this Court lacks jurisdiction;b.The Magistrate’s Court can only deal with employment disputes where the employee was earning a gross salary that does not exceed Kshs. 80,000. Therefore, this matter does not fall within the ambit of the donated powers to the Magistrate’s Court because the Claimant was earning a salary of Kshs. 200,000 at the time of her dismissal;c.In paragraph 12 of the Response to the Statement of Claim dated 6th January 2023, the Respondent alleges that the Claimant was being paid a salary of Kshs. 100,000, which exceeds the Kshs. 80,000 threshold;d.The Ruiru Magistrate’s Court does not have the jurisdiction to resolve this dispute. This necessitated the withdrawal of Ruiru PMCELRC No. E018 of 2022;e.With regard to employment disputes where an employee was earning a salary that exceeds Kshs. 80,000 the Employment and Labour Relations Court does not have concurrent jurisdiction with the Magistrate’s Court.
4. This is a straightforward matter. The jurisdiction of Magistrate’s Courts to hear and determine employment disputes is donated by Gazette Notice No 6024 of 10th June 2018, by which all Magistrates of the rank of Senior Resident Magistrate and above were gazetted as Special Magistrates to hear and determine the following cases within their areas of jurisdiction:1. Disputes arising from contracts of employment (excluding trade disputes under the Labour Relations Act, 2007) where the employee’s gross monthly pay does not exceed KSh. 80,000 as commenced and continued in accordance with the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016.
2. …
5. I do not need to say more. The Claimant’s salary as pleaded by both the Claimant and the Respondent is beyond the threshold set by the instrument donating jurisdiction to the Magistrate’s Courts.
6. That said, the claimant’s case falls within the jurisdiction of this court and the respondent’s preliminary objection is without basis and is overruled with costs to the claimant.
7. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023LINNET NDOLOJUDGEAppearance:Mr. Mbuthia for the ClaimantMr. Kamonjo for the RespondentNBI. ELRC. NO. E844 of 2022 0