Rose Naliaka Mulunda v Searite Holdings Limited
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed it can hear low-salary employment claims, dismissing an employer's attempt to block a worker's case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court is seized of Jurisdiction to entertain, to hear and to determine the suit herein
Key legal issues
#Whether the ELRC has jurisdiction over employment claims where the employee earns below Kshs.80,000/= per month
The Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 2018 delegated, not ousted, the Court's jurisdiction; a suit filed in the ELRC remains competent.
Article 162(2)(a) confers jurisdiction over employment disputes on the ELRC. Gazette Notice No. 6024 of 2018 merely delegated some of that jurisdiction to the Magistrates' Courts, possibly to ease workload. A matter filed in the ELRC instead of the Magistrates' Court does not become incompetent; the Court may transfer it where appropriate. Only suits by employees earning above Kshs.80,000/= filed in the Magistrates' Court would be an abuse of process.
Whether raising constitutional issues in an employment dispute offends the doctrine of constitutional avoidance
The salary threshold is not a bar to the Claimant moving the Court on alleged constitutional violations, provided the issues fall within the Court's jurisdiction.
The Court held that the Claimant must prove breach and violation of her constitutional rights by evidence at trial, and the burden lies initially on her. The fact that she earned below Kshs.80,000/= does not bar her from approaching this Court on constitutional claims within its jurisdiction, with Rule 10(3) of the ELRC [Procedure] Rules 2024 called in aid.
Legal principles established
#- A Gazette Notice delegating employment claims below Kshs.80,000/= to the Magistrates' Courts does not oust the ELRC's jurisdiction; filing in the ELRC instead of the Magistrates' Court does not render a matter incompetent.
- The ELRC retains inherent residual jurisdiction even where jurisdiction is ousted by statute, because the right of access to justice cannot be taken away.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 19th September, 2025 is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
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.
A matter filed in this Court instead of the Magistrates’ Court does not become incompetent by virtue of that filing.
The right of access to justice can never be taken away.
Such suit will be dead on arrival; and its filing will be an abuse of the Court’s process.
I find no merit in the Respondent’s Preliminary Objection dated 19th September, 2025, and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Ruling is marked 'DRAFT' on every page.
Delivery date year appears erroneous (2026).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rose Naliaka Mulunda v Searite Holdings Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. E507 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2681/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.