[2016] KEHC 7691 (KLR)
The court found that the issue of whether Section 7(b) of the Magistrate’s Court Act No.26 of 2015 is unconstitutional for conflicting with Article 162(2) of the Constitution raises a substantial question of law. This is due to the novelty, complexity, and public interest involved, as well as the potential need for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 7691 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union; Respondent: The Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 140 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Referral to Chief Justice for Empanelment of Bench Under Article 165(4)
- Outcome
- Matter referred to the Chief Justice to constitute a bench of an uneven number of Judges under Article 165(4) of the Constitution.
- Judges
- I Lenaola
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Magistrates, Constitutionality of Statutes, Substantial Question of Law
- 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
Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union
Applicant
The Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Referral to Chief Justice for Empanelment of Bench Under Article 165(4)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Section 7(b) of the Magistrate’s Court Act No.26 of 2015 is unconstitutional for being in conflict with Article 162(2) of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether the matter raises a substantial question of law necessitating constitution of a bench under Article 165(4) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the issue of whether Section 7(b) of the Magistrate’s Court Act No.26 of 2015 is unconstitutional for conflicting with Article 162(2) of the Constitution raises a substantial question of law. This is due to the novelty, complexity, and public interest involved, as well as the potential need for consolidation with a similar petition. The court applied established principles from precedent, noting that the question of magistrates' jurisdiction in employment and labour relations is contested and weighty, and that such matters have previously warranted the constitution of a bench under Article 165(4). Accordingly, the court ordered referral of the matter to the Chief...
Court Disposition
Matter referred to the Chief Justice to constitute a bench of an uneven number of Judges under Article 165(4) of the Constitution.
Orders
- The matter is referred to the Chief Justice to constitute a bench of an uneven number of Judges under Article 165(4) of the Constitution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO.140 OF 2016
BETWEEN
KENYA PLANTATION & AGRICULTURAL WORKERS UNION.............…PETITIONER
AND
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL……………………….………………………….RESPONDENT
RULING
The matter relates to the question whether Section 7(b) of the Magistrate’s Court Act No.26 of 2015 is unconstitutional for being in conflict with Article 162(2) of the Constitution.
All Advocates before me agree that the said issue raises a substantial question of law necessitating the Constitution of a bench of Judges under Article 165(4)of theConstitution. Does it?
It is now settled that for a matter to be referred to the Chief Justice under the said Article, the following authorities give direction to a Court confronted by that question:
Sir Chunilal & Sons Ltd vs Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Lt. 1962 SC 1314.
County Government of Meru vs EACC [2014] e KLR.
The principles that emerge from the above decisions is that a substantial question would arise where;
The matter is complex.
The matter raises a novel point of law.
The matter by itself requires a substantial amount of time to be disposed of.
The effect of the prayers sought in the Petition are substantial.
The level of public interest generated by the Petition is high.
It is also the position of this Court that each case ought to be looked at in its own circumstances noting the issues raised therein but the bottomline must be that a substantial question of law must be disclosed by the pleadings filed.
In applying those principles to the present case, I note firstly that, in H.C. Malindi Constitutional Petition No.3 of 2016 Malindi Law Society vs AG & Anor,Chitembwe J. found that a near similar question in relation to Section 7(3), 8(d)and24(4) (b) of the Environment and Land Court Act necessitated such a bench of Judges. The Chief Justice in agreement constituted such a bench.
Secondly, the issue whether Magistrates should have any jurisdiction in respect of matters of employment and labour relations is a novel, contested and weighty issue.
Thirdly, the question of jurisdiction, while otherwise easy to grapple with requires more than one mind where the issues raised affect the larger public and the attainment of their right to access to justice.
Lastly, as each case must be looked at in its own circumstances and since there may be need to consolidate this Petition with Petition No.3 of 2016 at Malindi, it is best that this matter be referred to the Chief Justice to constitute a bench of an uneven number of Judges under Article 165(4)of theConstitution.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2016.
ISAAC LENAOLA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Muriuki – Court clerk
Mr. Achiando for Petitioner
Mr. Kamunya holding brief for Miss Mbilo for Respondent
Mr. Mwendwa for Interested Party
Order
Ruling duly delivered.
ISAAC LENAOLA
JUDGE