Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause E487 of 2025· [2026] KEELRC 2524 (KLR)

Jalango v Adam

Employment and Labour Relations Court
24 September 2026
BMB. O. M. Manani
1,060 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court refused to strike out a defamation suit, ruling that whether an employment relationship existed must be decided after a full trial, not on paperwork alone.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant sued the Respondent alleging defamation: the Respondent allegedly wrote to NCBA and DTB banks stating that the Claimant had been suspended from duty, which the Claimant says was false and defamatory, and contends the statement was issued in the course of an employment relationship. The Respondent filed an application dated 18 November 2025 seeking a declaration that the court lacks jurisdiction under section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act because the claim is a pure defamation tort triable only by the High Court and because no employer-employee relationship exists between the parties; he sought that the suit be struck out. The Claimant opposed, invoking section 2 of the Employment Act to argue that the Respondent, as an agent of his employer, stood in the position of an employer, and that the ELRC has jurisdiction over ancillary claims such as defamation arising from employment. The court held that the jurisdictional objection rests on a mixed question of law and fact - the existence of an employment relationship - which cannot be conclusively determined at a preliminary stage without trial evidence; it also observed that the objection was not a pure point of law and would have been better anchored in a defence. A purported contract of service on the file, not yet formally tendered in evidence, could not be relied upon. The court declined to determine jurisdiction at the preliminary stage and directed that the question be determined after full trial, with costs of the application abiding the results of the trial. The application was effectively dismissed without costs being awarded.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a defamation claim arising in employment falls within the ELRC's jurisdiction under section 12 of the ELRC Act

Holding

The court declined to decide jurisdiction at the preliminary stage, deferring it to after full trial

Reasoning

The Respondent's objection rests on the factual assertion that no employment relationship existed. The Claimant invoked section 2 of the Employment Act, arguing the Respondent as the employer's agent stood in the position of an employer. Because the issue turns on facts yet to be proved at trial, the court could not make a conclusive determination on the documents alone.

p. 2
02

Whether a jurisdictional point that depends on facts should be raised before a defence is filed

Holding

The court observed it would have been better for the Respondent to file a defence first so the factual basis of the objection would be anchored in the pleadings

Reasoning

The court noted the Respondent disputed the employment relationship without filing a defence. Since the objection rests partly on fact, it is not a pure point of law capable of being raised without pleading support; a defence would have given the application anchorage.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A jurisdictional objection premised on the existence of an employment relationship is a mixed question of law and fact that cannot be conclusively resolved at a preliminary stage without evidence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The court declined to determine whether there was an employment relationship between the parties at the preliminary stage
  2. 2.The question of jurisdiction, anchored on whether the parties had an employment relationship, shall be determined after full trial
  3. 3.Costs of the application will abide the results of the trial
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (jurisdiction challenged; claim founded on the Employment Act, section 2)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jalango v Adam", Case Analysis (2026). Cause E487 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2524/eng@2026-09-24

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.