Yakub Ibrahim v International Committee of the Red Cross [2015] KEELRC 32 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court struck out an employee's claim against the Red Cross because the organisation's legal immunity had never been formally waived.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain and determine the suit given the Respondent's immunity against legal process under the Privileges and Immunities Act and the 1996 Orders
- 2.Whether the Respondent waived its immunity by lodging a criminal complaint against the Claimant
- 3.Whether the Respondent's Staff Regulations, which subject employment to national/local law, override the immunity granted under the Headquarters Agreement
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction in the face of immunity under the Privileges and Immunities Act
The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the Respondent enjoys complete immunity from legal process under the Privileges and Immunities Act (Cap. 179) and the ICRC Orders, 1996, and the Headquarters Agreement with the Republic of Kenya
Article 3 of the Agreement between the Republic of Kenya and the ICRC grants the organisation, its property and assets immunity from every form of legal and administrative process unless the ICRC has expressly waived it. Immunity persists until removed or waived by an appropriate order. The agreement predates the 2010 Constitution and, by operation of Article 2, remains binding; internal staff regulations cannot negate its terms.
Whether the criminal complaint against the Claimant waived the immunity
No - a criminal complaint does not lift the Respondent's immunity from employment and labour claims, as criminal and employment matters are distinct
The court held there is a distinctive separation between criminal matters and employment/labour matters, and one does not automatically override the other. A criminal charge does not bar employment-related sanctions, and equally a criminal complaint cannot be a basis to infer lifting of immunity so as to allow the civil employment claim before the court.
Whether Staff Regulations subjecting employment to local law override the Headquarters Agreement
No - internal regulations or policy documents cannot override the Agreement so as to negate its terms
The Agreement was signed before the Constitution 2010 came into force and, by operation of Article 2 on supremacy, remains binding. The Staff Regulations providing that employment matters are subject to national law cannot displace the express immunity terms agreed between the Government of Kenya and the Respondent.
Legal principles established
#- A body granted immunity against legal process continues to enjoy that immunity until it is removed or waived by issuance of an appropriate order; internal regulations cannot override a headquarters agreement granting immunity
- Lodging a criminal complaint by an employer against an employee does not constitute a waiver of the employer's immunity from employment-related civil claims
- Employment contracts of international organisations fall within their internal operations for which diplomatic immunity may be invoked, and disputes must go through internal procedures or international mechanisms
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection by the Respondent is upheld
- 2.The claim herein is struck out
- 3.Each party shall bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly invoked; matter decided on a preliminary objection to jurisdiction under the Privileges and Immunities Act (Cap. 179) and the Privileges and Immunities (International Committee of the Red Cross) Orders, 1996
Relief refused
#The Claimant's claim (unfair labour practice/employment claim) in its entirety
The Respondent enjoys immunity against legal process under the Privileges and Immunities Act, Cap. 179, and the ICRC Orders, 1996, and such immunity was neither removed nor expressly waived
Costs
Each party shall bear their own costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The ICRC, its property and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal and administrative process unless the ICRC has expressly waived its immunity.
a body, entity, agency or as the case may be that has been granted immunity against prosecution or in any other manner shall continue to enjoy the same until such immunity is removed or waived vide issuance of an appropriate Order.
In this regard therefore, a criminal complaint against the Claimant cannot be a good basis to infer the lifting of immunity against the Respondent so as to bar any action before this court.
The objections by the Respondent are upheld. The claim herein is struck out. Each party shall bear their own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not disclose the case number, the name of the Claimant, or the date the cause was filed; the title and parties are identified only by role
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Yakub Ibrahim v International Committee of the Red Cross [2015] KEELRC 32 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in the judgment (Cause number not disclosed). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/32/eng@2015-12-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.