Oyieke v Kenya National Trading Corporation Ltd (Cause E021 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1245 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer couldn't block an unfair termination case by pointing to internal dispute rules without proving those rules actually applied.
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 lacks jurisdiction for failure to exhaust internal and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms under Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution and clause 11.23 of the Respondent's HR Policy and Procedures Manual
- 2.Whether Section 74 of the Public Service Commission Act and Regulation 68(1) of the Public Service Commission Regulations, 2020 oust the Court's jurisdiction
- 3.Whether the supporting and verifying affidavits are defective under Section 5 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act
- 4.Whether the suit is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process for non-disclosure of material facts
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court lacks jurisdiction under Section 74 of the Public Service Commission Act
The preliminary objection failed because the Respondent did not demonstrate that the Public Service Commission Act applied to its disciplinary processes
The Respondent relied on Section 74 of the Public Service Commission Act and Regulation 68(1) of the PSC Regulations to argue that the Court lacked jurisdiction. However, the Respondent did not adduce any material showing a nexus between its internal disciplinary processes and the Public Service Commission or the Act. The Court also noted an assumption that the PSC had appointed an authorised officer under section 74, but no evidence of this was placed before it.
Treatment of late-filed submissions
The Respondent's submissions filed out of time without explanation were expunged
The Respondent filed submissions on 9 May 2024 despite a direction to file by 26 April 2024, without explaining the delay. The Court held that this frustrated the expeditious disposal of the Cause contemplated by the ELRC Act and that the Respondent had failed to prosecute the preliminary objection. The submissions were accordingly expunged, though the Court still considered the legal framework relied upon.
Legal principles established
#- A party invoking an internal or statutory dispute resolution mechanism to oust the Court's jurisdiction must place material before the Court demonstrating a nexus between its processes and the relevant statutory framework
- Submissions filed out of court-ordered timelines without explanation may be expunged from the record
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection is struck out
- 2.Any preliminary legal points on jurisdiction to be taken as part of the hearing on the merits and included, if at all, in the Response
- 3.The Claimant to have costs
- 4.The Respondent's submissions filed out of time are expunged from the record
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (Court's constitutive statute)
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.
In light of the above, the Court strikes out the Notice of Preliminary Objection.
The Court further orders that any preliminary legal points on jurisdiction will be taken as part of the hearing on the merits and should be included if at all in the Response.
The Court further orders that any preliminary legal points on jurisdiction will be taken as part of the hearing on the merits
The Claimant to have costs.
the Respondent has not placed any material before the Court to demonstrate a nexus between its disciplinary processes and the Public Service Commission of Kenya or the Public Service Commission Act
Issues in the judgment
#No case number or citation for the Cause appears in the judgment
The judgment records the Claimant filing submissions before the Respondent despite later stating the Respondent filed late, with no explanation offered by the Respondent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Oyieke v Kenya National Trading Corporation Ltd (Cause E021 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1245 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1245/eng@2024-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.