Aluko & 17 others (Suing on their own behalf and on behalf of other interested current and former frontline courier employees of G4S Kenya limited both casual and permanent) v G4S Kenya Limited; Kenya National Private Security Workers Union (Interested Party) (Cause E730 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2837 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court kept 18 courier employees' pay claims in Nairobi but split one worker's dismissal claim, confirming employers can't easily move cases to lower courts.
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 Claimants should be tried separately.
- 2.Whether the suit(s) should be transferred to the Magistrates Court, Employment and Labour Relations Division
Key legal issues
#Separate trial of jointly instituted claims
The 1st Claimant's claim (constructive dismissal while in management) was distinct and dissimilar from the rest; the 2nd to 18th Claimants share a similar claim of salary underpayment due to misclassification and may be tried together.
The court applied Rule 23 of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2024, confirming both statutory elements were met for the representative suit: signed letters of authority from each Claimant and a similar cause of action. On the pleadings and witness statements, it analysed each Claimant's claim and concluded that only the 1st Claimant's constructive dismissal claim was dissimilar, warranting separation; the remaining 17 claims overlapped in evidence.
Jurisdiction to transfer the suit to the Magistrates Court
Transfer to the Magistrates Court was declined. The ELRC's original jurisdiction over employment disputes remains intact, and the pleadings raise constitutional issues of discrimination, unfair labour practices and inhuman treatment within the court's exclusive competence.
The Respondent relied on a Gazette notice and the Claimants' salaries below Kshs. 80,000 to urge transfer. The court held the constitutional jurisdiction was engaged by the discrimination and unfair labour practice allegations, and that transfer would be premature until it was evident the constitutional claims were 'mere sugar coating'. The overriding objective under section 3 of the ELRC Act also favoured avoiding multiplicity of suits.
Legal principles established
#- A representative suit under Rule 23 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Procedure Rules, 2024 requires a similar cause of action and a letter of authority signed by all parties represented.
- The ELRC's original jurisdiction over employment disputes is intact notwithstanding a Gazette notice conferring jurisdiction on the Magistrates Court over lower-salary claims, particularly where constitutional issues are raised.
Court orders
#- 1.The claim for the 1st Claimant be separated from the claims for the 2nd to 18th Claimants.
- 2.The Claimants are given leave of 14 days to amend their statement of claim to effect the said separation of the respective claims.
- 3.The Respondent is awarded 14 days upon service of the Amended pleadings by the Claimants to file and serve Responses.
- 4.The suits will be heard and determined by this court.
- 5.Costs of the motion shall be in the cause.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over employment disputes and constitutional issues arising in the employment relationship
Relief refused
#Transfer of the suit to the Magistrates Court, Employment and Labour Relations Division
The court retained jurisdiction; the Claimants raised constitutional issues of discrimination, unfair labour practices and inhuman treatment which only this court can determine.
Separate trial of all 18 claims
Only the 1st Claimant's claim was found distinct; the claims of the 2nd to 18th Claimants share a similar cause of action (salary underpayment due to misclassification) and may be tried together.
Costs
Costs of the motion shall be in the cause.
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.
I find that the claims by the 2nd to 18th Claimants can be tried together but separate from the claims for the 1st Claimant.
Sufice it to say that this court's original jurisdiction over employment dispute is still intact.
a. The claim for the 1st Claimant be separated from the claims for the 2nd to 18th Claimants.
d. The suits will be heard and determined by this court.
e. Costs of the motion shall be in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#Advocate for the Respondent is referred to as both 'Mr. Aluko Advocate' and 'Mr. Adiwo Advocate' in the submissions paragraphs, while the appearance section records 'Aluko for the Claimant' and 'Andiwo for the Respondent', creating ambiguity as to who represented which party.
The judgment states the motion was supported by an affidavit sworn by the 'Human Resource Oficer courier division one Fedha Ithinji' but elsewhere describes the motion as the Respondent's; paragraph 1 introducing the judgment is empty, leaving the application's introduction incomplete.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Aluko & 17 others (Suing on their own behalf and on behalf of other interested current and former frontline courier employees of G4S Kenya limited both casual and permanent) v G4S Kenya Limited; Kenya National Private Security Workers Union (Interested Party) (Cause E730 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2837 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2837/eng@2025-10-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.