Constitutional Petition 2 of 2023

Case Metadata
Case Number:	Constitutional Petition 2 of 2023
Parties:	Keter & 20 others v Finlays (Kenya) Limited & another; Federation of Kenya Women Lawyers & 3 others (Interested Parties)
Date Delivered:	20 Sep 2023
Case Class:
Court:	High Court at Kericho
Case Action:	Ruling
Judge(s):	Joseph Kiplagat Sergon
Citation:	Keter & 20 others v Finlays (Kenya) Limited & another; Federation of Kenya Women Lawyers & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Constitutional Petition 2 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 22429 (KLR) (20 September 2023) (Ruling)
Court Division:	Constitutional and Human Rights
County:	Kericho
Disclaimer:	The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

Keter & 20 others v Finlays (Kenya) Limited & another; Federation of Kenya Women Lawyers & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Constitutional Petition 2 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 22429 (KLR) (20 September 2023) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 22429 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Kericho

Constitutional Petition 2 of 2023

JK Sergon, J

September 20, 2023

Between

Sammy Kiplangat Keter

1^st Petitioner

Alice Chemeli Martim

2^nd Petitioner

Nancy Njeri

3^rd Petitioner

Cecilia Chepkorir Ngeno

4^th Petitioner

Jacob Odongo Opere

5^th Petitioner

Grace Akinyi Opere

6^th Petitioner

Teresia Atelo Nyangweso

7^th Petitioner

Brenda Chepkoech Mutai

8^th Petitioner

Caroline Koskei

9^th Petitioner

Flomena Anna Chepngeno Chumo

10^th Petitioner

Lily Langat

11^th Petitioner

David Kipngeno Langat

12^th Petitioner

David Aronsio Onyancha

13^th Petitioner

Alice Chebet Tarus

14^th Petitioner

Millicent Cheptoo

15^th Petitioner

Gladys Bwari Onywoki

16^th Petitioner

Jescah Asiko Opwondi

17^th Petitioner

Loice Atambitsa

18^th Petitioner

Lina Chelangat Kirui

19^th Petitioner

Nora Chemutai Soi

20^th Petitioner

Evaline Kwamboka

21^st Petitioner

and

Finlays (Kenya) Limited

1^st Respondent

Ekaterra tea Kenya Plc

2^nd Respondent

and

Federation of Kenya Women Lawyers

Interested Party

Human Rights commission

Interested Party

Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union

Interested Party

Rain forest Alliance

Interested Party

Ruling

1.This ruling is the outcome of two notices of preliminary objection. The first is dated March 23, 2023in which the 2^nd respondent argued that the petition dated 7/3/2023 and amended notice of motion dated 13/3/2023 are bad in law as this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the same.

2.The 2^nd respondent put forward the following grounds:-i.The application and the petition raise constitutional issues arising from and/or in respect of an employer-employee relationship.ii.The Employment and Labour Relations court, by virtue of article 162 (2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and section 12 (1) of the employment and Labour Relations Court Act No.20 of 2011, has exclusive original and jurisdiction to hear and determine all disputes relating to Employment and Labour Relations, including Constitutional matters arising therefrom.iii.The High court lacks jurisdiction, by virtue of article 165 (5) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 to deal with matters that fall within the ambit of the employment and Labour Relations Court.

3.The secondnotice of preliminary objection is dated April 24, 2023in which the 1^st respondent challenged the amended motion dated March 27, 2023 and the amended petition dated March 13, 2023 and relied on the following grounds:-i.The alleged 1^st Respondents though served with pleadings herein is not known by the name “Finlys (kenya) Ltd.”ii.The High court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit by virtue of article 162 (2) (a) read together witharticle 165 (5) (b) of the Constitution since the subject matter in dispute relate to Employment and Labour Relations.

4.When the aforesaid notices came up for hearing, parties opted to file written submissions. I have considered the rival written submissions plus the grounds stated on the two notices.

5.The main ground raised in the notices of preliminary objection is to the effect that theissues in dispute are matters which belong to the Employment and Labour Relations Court under article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and under section 12 (1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act No.20 of 2011.

6.The 1^st and 2^nd Respondents averred that this court lacks Jurisdiction to entertain the dispute under article 165 (5) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.

7.It is the submission of the 1^st respondent that the suit is based on breaches arising out of employment relationships, therefore the High court lacks Jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant Petition together with the applications emanating therefrom.

8.The 1^st respondent urged this court to strike out the petition and any subsequent pleadings emanating therefrom.

9.The 2^nd respondent also submitted that the High Court is devoid of Jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute between the parties in the instant petition.

10.The 2^nd respondent pointed out that the matters raised in the petition and the subsequent application relate to an employment relationship between the Respondent, the Petitioners.

11.This court was urged to dismiss the petition on the basis that the court is bereft of Jurisdiction. The 2^nd respondent further stated that the Employment and Labour Relations court can hear and determine any claims under the Constitution in respect of alleged violation of fundamental rights and freedoms under chapter 4 of the Constitution which arise from an Employment Relationship.

12.In Response to the 1^st and 2^nd respondent’s submissions over the notices as the preliminary objection, the petitioners are of the submission that there is no express provisions giving Jurisdiction to Employment and Labour Relations Court to entertain hear and determine the questions whether a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of rights has been denied, infringed or threatened.

13.The petitioners further argued that the High Court Jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition since the petitions are basically inviting this court to determine the questions whether a right, fundamental freedom in the Bill of rights has been denied, violated, infringed or threatened.

14.It is apparent that the petitioners in the further amended petitiondated April 19, 2023in paragraph 1 aver as follows:-“

1.The petitioners are Kenyan Citizens Ordinarily residing in Kericho County within the Republic of Kenya and are workers or were at same point workers of the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents. The Petitioners present this Petition on their own behalf and in the interest of 12,000 women workers who are discontented with the high levels of impunity in Kenya and in the Public Interest bearing their responsibility Under article 3, 10, 22 and 258 of the constitution to respect, uphold and defend the Constitution.”

15.In paragraph 79 and 92 of the further amended petition which the petitioners listed the alleged violations of rights and fundamental freedoms committed by the 1^st respondent against them in the course of the Petitioners employment.

16.There is no dispute that Under article 162 (2) (b) of the constitution of Kenya, 2010, the employment and Labour Relations court is given exclusive Jurisdiction over disputes relating to employment and Labour Relations.

17.I am of the view that once the Constitution and the Act, has given exclusive Jurisdiction over employment disputes to the Employment and Labour Relations court, that Jurisdiction encompasses disputes pertaining to violation of rights and fundamental freedoms.

18.The High Court does not therefore have jurisdiction to entertain the present suit by virtue of the Express Provisions ofarticle 165 (5) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.

19.I am persuaded by the argument put forward by the 2^nd respondent that the Jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations to hear and determine Constitutional Matters arising out of employment relationships is settled by judicial pronouncements.

20.In the case of International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) =VS= Nancy MCnally (2018)eKLR the court of appeal expressed itself as follows:-“There cannot be any argument that the ELRC is clothed with Jurisdiction to hear and determine such Constitutional issues as an when they arise from Employment and Labour Relations. Any doubts on that Jurisdiction were settled in the case of United States International University (USIU) -vs- Attorney General (2012)eKLR.” which was upheld by this court in Daniel N. Mugendi v Kenyatta University & 3 ot hers [2013]eKLR.”

21.In the end, I find the two notices of preliminary objections to be meritorious. i uphold the preliminary objections and proceed to dismiss the amended petition dated 13/3/2023 and the further amended petition of even date together with all the applications emanating from those petitions.

22.In the circumstances of this matter, a fair order on costs is to order which I hereby do that each party meets its own costs.

Dated, Signed and Delivered Virtually this 20^th day of September, 2023.J.K. SERGONJUDGEIn the presence of:C/Assistant – Rutoh

Case Content:		Subject:
Case Number:		Parties:
Judge:		Court:
	Delivery Date Range:
From:		To:

Case Search

Constitutional Petition 2 of 2023

Case Metadata

Please enter advanced search options