Jalango v Mansingh
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 court lacks jurisdiction because the claim does not constitute an employment and labour relations dispute within section 12 of the ELRC Act, given the alleged absence of an employment relationship
- 2.Whether the question of the existence of an employment relationship is a pure point of law or a matter of law and fact requiring trial
- 3.Whether the cause should be prosecuted as an undefended suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the jurisdictional objection was a pure point of law
No; the objection is anchored on both law and fact and required pleadings and trial evidence
The Respondent disputed jurisdiction on the basis that no employment relationship existed. The court held that this factual question could not be conclusively resolved at a preliminary stage, especially where the contract of service on the file had not been formally tendered in evidence, and directed that jurisdiction be determined after full trial.
Whether the suit should proceed as an undefended cause
No; the Respondent's entry of appearance and jurisdiction objection signified an intention to defend
Although the Respondent did not file a defence within time, he entered appearance and raised a jurisdictional objection, which the court read as an intention to defend. Locking him out at that stage would be inappropriate; he was instead given 7 days to file a defence.
Legal principles established
#- Where a jurisdictional objection rests on the existence of an employment relationship, a mixed question of law and fact, it must be determined at trial, not as a preliminary point
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent's application dated 18th November 2025 is declined
- 2.The court declines to determine whether there was an employment relationship between the parties at this preliminary stage before examining trial evidence
- 3.The question of jurisdiction anchored on whether the parties had an employment relationship shall be determined after full trial
- 4.The Claimant's application dated 19th September 2025 is declined since the Respondent has signified an intention to defend the suit
- 5.The Respondent is granted the opportunity to file and serve a defence within 7 days of the ruling, failing which the Claimant may set down the suit for hearing as an undefended cause
- 6.Costs of the two applications shall abide the results of the trial
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (jurisdiction objection); section 2 of the Employment Act invoked by the Claimant
Relief refused
#Respondent's prayer that the court find it lacks jurisdiction under section 12 of the ELRC Act
Whether the parties had an employment relationship is a matter of law and fact determinable only after full trial
Claimant's application that the cause be prosecuted as an undefended suit
The Respondent's entry of appearance and jurisdiction objection signified an intention to defend
Costs
Costs of the two applications shall abide the results of the trial.
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 question whether the disputants had an employment relationship is both a matter of law and fact. As such, it can only be determined after examining the evidence which they (the parties) will tender on the subject at the trial against the applicable law.
The court declines to determine whether there was an employment relationship between the parties at this preliminary stage of the case before it examines the evidence which the parties will tender on the matter during the trial.
The Respondent is granted the opportunity to file and serve a defense to the cause within 7 days of this ruling to enable the parties to set down the matter for pre-trial conference failing which the Claimant will be at liberty to set down the suit for hearing as an undefended cause.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jalango v Mansingh", Case Analysis (2026). Employment and Labour Relations Cause E488 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2539/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.