Ehenzo v Cosmos Limited (Cause E339 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 666 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 Employment and Labour Relations Court has pecuniary jurisdiction over a claim by an employee earning a gross monthly salary of Kshs 64,692, below the Kshs 80,000 threshold set by Gazette Notice 6024 of 2018
- 2.Whether the preliminary objection that the Claim be struck out for want of jurisdiction should succeed
Key legal issues
#Pecuniary jurisdiction of the E&LRC under Gazette Notice 6024 of 2018
The Court lacks jurisdiction over the Claimant's claim because his gross monthly salary of Kshs 64,692 was below the Kshs 80,000 threshold, and such claims lie before designated Chief Magistrate's Courts.
The Respondent's preliminary objection was grounded on Gazette Notice 6024 of 10th June 2018, confining the Court to claims where the employee earned a gross monthly salary of Kshs 80,000 and above at termination. The Claimant's admitted gross salary was Kshs 64,692. His invocation of Articles 48 and 162(2)(a) and Section 12 of the E&LRC Act did not assist, as those provisions do not deal with pecuniary jurisdiction. The objection therefore succeeded and the Claim was struck out.
Constitutional provisions invoked to establish jurisdiction
Articles 48 and 162(2)(a) of the Constitution do not confer pecuniary jurisdiction on the Court.
The Claimant argued that the constitutional mandate of the Court gave it jurisdiction notwithstanding the Gazette Notice. The Court held that neither Article 48 nor Article 162 addresses pecuniary jurisdiction of the courts, and dismissed the Grounds of Opposition as unpersuasive. The Claimant ought instead to have conceded his error and moved his Claim to the proper forum.
Legal principles established
#- Gazette Notice 6024 of 2018 sets the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at a gross monthly salary of Kshs 80,000 and above; claims below that threshold belong to designated Chief Magistrate's Courts.
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
- 2.No order on the costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Gazette Notice Number 6024 of 10th June 2018 (pecuniary jurisdiction of the E&LRC); Claimant invoked Section 12 of the E&LRC Act and Articles 48 and 162(2)(a) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Claimant's compensation and damages for unfair and unlawful redundancy
The Claim was struck out because the Claimant's gross monthly salary fell below the Kshs 80,000 pecuniary jurisdictional threshold set by Gazette Notice 6024 of 2018
Respondent's prayer for costs
The court declined to award costs to the Respondent notwithstanding the striking out
Costs
No order on the 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 Claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
No order on the costs.
Gazette Notice 6024 of 2018 clearly sets the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts, in employment disputes.
The pecuniary delimitation, is not an issue, like the material and personal jurisdiction of the Courts, which should exercise the Parties’ legal minds and consume Judicial time.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment extract does not state the case number, party names, or neutral citation; the coram identifies only the Judge.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ehenzo v Cosmos Limited (Cause E339 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 666 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/666/eng@2024-03-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.