Omwikwesakwa v Afya Sacco Ltd (Cause 872 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 2524 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court stopped an auction of a former employee's home, confirming staff housing loans fall within employment disputes.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain these Applications
- 2.Whether the Applicant's Applications are res judicata
- 3.Whether the Applicant is entitled to reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELRC over staff loan/charge disputes
The court has jurisdiction because the dispute emanates from the employer-employee relationship; the loan was available only to employees
The court applied Owners of Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' v Caltex Oil on jurisdiction and followed Abraham Nyambane Asiago v Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd, where an injunction was granted in identical circumstances involving a staff housing loan recalled after termination of employment. The facility's availability exclusively to employees anchored the dispute in employment and labour relations.
Res judicata
No res judicata; the earlier application of 20th December 2019 was withdrawn by consent and never heard on merit
Under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, res judicata bars multiple suits on the same subject matter, but the prior application was withdrawn on 25th February 2020 by consent to allow settlement and fast-tracking of the main suit. The Respondent's breach of that understanding and renewed auction threats justified the Applicant returning to court.
Entitlement to interlocutory injunction
A prima facie case and irreparable harm were established; injunction granted pending hearing of the main suit
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya, the court found that the threatened sale of the Applicant's matrimonial home, financed through employment benefits, disclosed a right apparently infringed calling for rebuttal. Loss of the family home could not be adequately compensated by damages, satisfying the irreparable harm test.
Legal principles established
#- An ELRC court has jurisdiction over disputes concerning staff housing loans granted as an incident of employment, even where the relief concerns land
- A withdrawn application never heard on merit does not create res judicata
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent and/or its agents or servants restrained from auctioning and/or selling property known as Ngong/Ngong 38885 situate at Kajiado County until hearing and determination of the main suit
- 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the main suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution; section 12(1)(a) Industrial Court Act, 2011
Relief refused
#Order compelling the Respondent to provide a breakdown of monthly instalments, principal sum and interest due on loan ref. No. L020xxxx1
Not specifically granted in the final orders; only the restraining order was issued
Costs
Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.
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 Respondent and/or its agents or servants be and are hereby restrained from auctioning and or selling property known as Ngong/Ngong 38885 situate at Kajiado County until hearing and determination of the main suit.
this court has jurisdiction to entertain the Applicant's Applications since it emanates from employer-employee relationship and this property was only available for the Respondent's employees and not any other person.
There is therefore no res judicata because the application of 20th December, 2019 was never heard on merit.
There is therefore a prima facie case with probability of success before the Court.
If wrongfully sold, the loss cannot be compensated by award of damages as the property is dear to the applicant.
Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The name of the Respondent is never given in the judgment; it is referred to only as 'the Respondent'
The case number of the main suit and the applications is not stated anywhere in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omwikwesakwa v Afya Sacco Ltd (Cause 872 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 2524 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2524/eng@2023-10-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.