[2021] KEELRC 2114 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 2114 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under Rule 5 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 and Section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007. Specifically, the claimant did not file a certificate of conciliation or an affidavit...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 2114 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Rashid Ali Masinde; Respondent: Hakika Transporters Services Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 839 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
claim struck out
Judges
J Rika
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Conciliation Procedure, Jurisdiction of Court
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Unfair Termination Conciliation Procedure Jurisdiction of Court

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rashid Ali Masinde

Claimant

Hakika Transporters Services Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the claimant complied with mandatory conciliation procedures under the Labour Relations Act and E&LRC Procedure Rules before filing the claim.
  2. 2 Whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the claim in the absence of a certificate of conciliation or affidavit explaining its absence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under Rule 5 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 and Section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 2007. Specifically, the claimant did not file a certificate of conciliation or an affidavit explaining its absence, leaving the court without evidence that the dispute remained unresolved at conciliation. This non-compliance was not a mere technicality but went to the root of the court's jurisdiction. Without proper compliance, the court was not properly seized of jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim. Consequently, the claim was improperly before the court and was...

Court Disposition

claim struck out

Orders

  • The claim is improperly before the court and is hereby struck out.
  • No order on the costs.