[2025] KEELRC 902 (KLR)
The Employment and Labour Relations Court held that it has jurisdiction to grant leave to continue proceedings against a company under administration under section 560(1)(d) of the Insolvency Act. The court rejected the administrator's argument that only the High Court handling insolvency matters could grant such...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELRC 902 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Bernard Maingi Kamau; Respondent: iProcure Limited; Proposed Interested Party: Anthony Makenzi Muthusi
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E197 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Motion for Leave to Continue Suit and Joinder of Interested Party
- Outcome
- Motion marked as withdrawn with costs.
- Judges
- S Radido
- Legal Topics
- Insolvency Administration, Leave to Continue Proceedings, Joinder of Interested Party, Jurisdiction of Elrc
- 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
Bernard Maingi Kamau
Applicant
iProcure Limited
Respondent
Anthony Makenzi Muthusi
Proposed Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Motion for Leave to Continue Suit and Joinder of Interested Party
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to continue proceedings against a company under administration.
- 2 Whether the consent of the administrator is mandatory before leave can be granted under section 560 of the Insolvency Act.
- 3 Whether the motion for leave and joinder should be marked as withdrawn with costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The Employment and Labour Relations Court held that it has jurisdiction to grant leave to continue proceedings against a company under administration under section 560(1)(d) of the Insolvency Act. The court rejected the administrator's argument that only the High Court handling insolvency matters could grant such leave, noting that the ELRC has the status of the High Court when exercising its jurisdiction. The court further clarified that the consent of the administrator is not mandatory, as the law provides for either the administrator's consent or the court's approval. The court emphasized that requiring parties to move the High Court separately would impede access to justice and delay...
Court Disposition
Motion marked as withdrawn with costs.
Orders
- The motion dated is marked as withdrawn with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
Kamau v iProcure Limited; Muthusi (Proposed Interested Party) (Cause E197 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 902 (KLR) (20 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELRC 902 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause E197 of 2024
S Radido, J
March 20, 2025
Between
Bernard Maingi Kamau
Claimant
and
iProcure Limited
Respondent
and
Anthony Makenzi Muthusi
Proposed Interested Party
Ruling
1. Bernard Maingi Kamau (the Claimant) sued iPROCURE Ltd (the Respondent) on 14 March 2024, alleging unfair termination of employment and breach of contract.
2. On 27 January 2025, the Claimant filed a Motion seeking orders:i.That leave be granted to the applicant to proceed and/or continue with the instant Claim/Suit against the Respondent.ii.That Anthony Makenzi Muthusi of KPMG Advisory Services Ltd be enjoined as an Interested Party to this Claim for purposes of continuation of the suit.iii.Costs of this application be in the cause.
3. The grounds in support of the Motion were that the Cause had been filed on 14 March 2024 but on 26 April 2024, the Respondent was placed under Administration and that under section 560 of the Insolvency Act, the Court needed to grant leave to maintain a claim against the Respondent since it was now under Administration.
4. The Court gave directions on the Motion on 28 January 2025 and the Administrator of the Respondent filed a replying affidavit on 4 February 2025.
5. In the affidavit, the Administrator challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to grant the order sought. According to the Administrator, jurisdiction lay with the High Court which was handling the Insolvency proceedings in Insolvency Cause No. E84 of 2024.
6. The Administrator further asserted that due to the financial crisis engulfing the Respondent, a moratorium had been placed on claims and granting the leave would defeat the objectives of the moratorium and Insolvency.
7. The Administrator indicated that he was not ready to give consent for the continuation of the proceedings.
8. The Claimant’s submissions were not on record (should have been filed and served before 14 February 2025) and the Administrator filed his submissions on 25 February 2025.
9. On 17 March 2025, the Claimant filed a Notice to withdraw the Motion.
10. The Court however notes that when the Claimant commenced legal proceedings against the Respondent, it had not been placed under administration.
11. Section 560(1)(d) of the Insolvency Act outlines what should happen if a company in litigation has been placed under administration.
12. The section provides:560(1)While a company is under administration —(a)...(b)...(c)...(d)a person may begin or continue legal proceedings (including execution and distress) against the company or the company's property only with the consent of the administrator or with the approval of the Court.
13. The proviso contemplates two scenarios for commencing or continuing legal proceedings against a company under administration. One option is to secure the consent of the Administrator or get the leave of the Court.
14. The Administrator’s objection that his consent must be sought is not correct. A Court has the discretion to grant the leave.
15. The Administrator also contended that it is the Insolvency Court that can grant leave. No authority for this postulation was disclosed.
16. The Insolvency Act defines the Court as the High Court or a division of the High Court dealing with insolvency disputes.
17. The Constitution of Kenya expressly guarantees access to justice. In this normative structure, should a party who filed proceedings with the Court with first instance jurisdiction move the High Court to grant leave to maintain legal proceedings before the Court with subject matter jurisdiction?
18. This Court thinks not. This Court has the status of the High Court when exercising its jurisdiction and it would be an impediment to the right to access justice and expeditious determination of disputes without delay to expect parties before it to move the High Court to secure leave to continue legal proceedings against a company under administration.Orders
19. The Motion dated is marked as withdrawn with costs.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED IN NAIROBI ON THIS 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2025. RADIDO STEPHEN, MCIArbJUDGEAppearancesFor Claimant Nyanyuki & Co. AdvocatesFor Respondent Nyaanga & Mugisha AdvocatesCourt Assistant Wangu