[2019] KEELRC 1074 (KLR)
The Court found that the issues raised by the 2nd Respondent, while valid, were not suitable for determination by way of a preliminary objection because they required examination of facts, not just law. The question of whether the 2nd Respondent was properly joined as a party and whether the Court had jurisdiction...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELRC 1074 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Lameck Nyarangu Ogechi; Respondent: DPL Festive Limited; Respondent: Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1427 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed
- Judges
- DO Ogal
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Employment Court, Preliminary Objection Threshold, Misjoinder of Parties, Employment Relationship, Court Powers, Party Liability
- 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
Lameck Nyarangu Ogechi
Applicant
DPL Festive Limited
Respondent
Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction over the 2nd Respondent in the absence of an employer-employee relationship.
- 2 Whether the preliminary objection raised by the 2nd Respondent meets the threshold for a preliminary objection as set out in law.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the issues raised by the 2nd Respondent, while valid, were not suitable for determination by way of a preliminary objection because they required examination of facts, not just law. The question of whether the 2nd Respondent was properly joined as a party and whether the Court had jurisdiction over it depended on the nature of the prayers sought and the facts as pleaded, not merely on the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The Court held that the absence of such a relationship does not automatically oust its jurisdiction, and that the matter was not a pure point of law but involved factual determinations. Consequently, the preliminary objection did not...
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed
Orders
- The preliminary objection dated 20th April 2018 is dismissed.
- There shall be no orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 1427 OF 2018
(Formerly Cause 99 of 2018)
Before Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango
LAMECK NYARANGU OGECHI...........................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
DPL FESTIVE LIMITED.............................................1ST RESPONDENT
KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED..............2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
The Preliminary Objection before the Court is dated 20th April 2018, filed by the 2nd Respondent, premised on the grounds:
1. That this Court lacks Jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 to entertain the entire claim against the 2nd Respondent herein.
2. That the claim fails to meet the threshold set out under the Employment and labour Relations Court Act, 2011 and the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016.
The Claimant filed grounds of opposition in response to the Preliminary Objection stating that the Court has jurisdiction and that the entire claim cannot be determined in a piecemeal manner as suggested by the 2nd Respondent.
Submissions
The 2nd Respondent submits that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a claim against it as there was no employer-employee relationship with the Claimant. That without jurisdiction the Court cannot make one more step as stated in the case of Owners of Motor Vessels ‘Lillian S’ Vs Caltex Oil Limited (1989) eKLR.
That the law clearly indicates that disputes arising from the employment relationship lie with this Court whereas there is no such relationship between the claimant and the 2nd Respondent. That at no point will the 2nd Respondent be in a position to answer to any element of employment by the Claimant and it is thus wrongly enjoined.
The Claimant on the hand submits that the Court has jurisdiction and he cannot be required to file multiple suits in different Courts against the same parties just because the 2nd Respondent thinks it is convenient for them. He relies on the case of Naqvi Syed Omar vs Paramount Bank Limited & Another (2015) eKLR where it was held that jurisdiction of this Court extends to all disputes relating to employment and labour relations. The court’s jurisdiction is no longer confined to employers and employees as was the case under the Trade Disputes Act Cap 234 to all persons implicated in an employment and labour relations dispute. He urges the Court to dismiss the Preliminary Objection with costs.
Determination
The issue for determination herein is whether the preliminary objection raised meets the threshold set in the Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Company Limited vs West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
The case of Mukisa Biscuits case defined a preliminary objection to be one that raises a pure point of law, which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct.
The 2nd Respondent argues that it is not suited in this cause and should be removed as a party for the reason that an employer-employee relationship does not exist between them and the Claimant.
The issues raised by the respondent through valid, are not suitable for preliminary objection. They are issues that turn on the facts and not the law. For the court to determine an issue of misjoinder, it has to examine the facts as pleaded by the parties as well as arguments of the parties.
The issue herein is in my view not one of jurisdiction but rather a question of misjoinder and/or lability. The mere fact that there was no employer/employee relationship between the claimant and the respondent does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of this court. It is the nature of the prayers sought as applied to the facts that would determine whether or not this court has jurisdiction.
I therefore find that this is not a case suitable for determination by why of a preliminary objection as it is a matter where the court will rely on evidence. The result that the same fails and is accordingly dismissed with no orders for costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 5TH DAY OF JULY 2019
MAUREEN ONYANGO
JUDGE