[2023] KEELRC 1605 (KLR)

[2023] KEELRC 1605 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent/applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a claim of diplomatic immunity that would oust the court's jurisdiction. The mere assertion of immunity, without documentary or substantive proof, is inadequate. The headquarters agreement referenced by the claimant only...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELRC 1605 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Alphonsus Neba; Respondent: African Academy of Sciences
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause E370 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the claimant/respondent
Judges
DKN Marete
Legal Topics
Diplomatic Immunity, Jurisdiction of Employment Court, Security for Costs, Constitutional Rights in Employment, Foreign National Claimant
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Diplomatic Immunity Jurisdiction of Employment Court Security for Costs Constitutional Rights in Employment Foreign National Claimant

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alphonsus Neba

Applicant

African Academy of Sciences

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Application

  1. 1 Whether the respondent enjoys diplomatic immunity barring the court from hearing the matter.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be compelled to deposit KES 10,000,000 as security for costs.
  3. 3 Whether documents relied upon by the claimant are immune from court processes due to diplomatic status.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent/applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a claim of diplomatic immunity that would oust the court's jurisdiction. The mere assertion of immunity, without documentary or substantive proof, is inadequate. The headquarters agreement referenced by the claimant only provided limited immunities related to taxation and did not extend to bar employment-related claims or constitutional rights enforcement. The court also held that the request for security for costs was not supported by evidence of real risk or inability to recover costs, as required by law. The Constitution's guarantees of access to justice and protection of rights cannot be...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the claimant/respondent

Orders

  • The respondent/applicant's application dated October 25, 2022 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the claimant/respondent.