SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Stephen Karumbi Ngugi v CIM Credit Kenya Limited [2019] KEELRC 520 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 520 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
520
Citation
[2019] KEELRC 520 (KLR)
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeLabor DisputePostureRespondent filed a preliminary objection, Claimant filed a counterclaimCoramRadido Stephen, Lenaola, Makau, Mativo, Rika
The Court dismisses the preliminary objection and orders it dismissed with no order on costs.

Facts

Claimant was employed as Finance Director by Respondent on a 2-year fixed term contract with a 3-month probation period. Claimant gave 7 days' notice of termination, but later corrected it to 3 months. Respondent deactivated Claimant's access to office and resources, leading to termination.

Issues

  • Claimant's locus standi
  • Court's jurisdiction

Reasoning

The Court finds no merit in the preliminary objection. It concludes that section 45(3) of the Employment Act, 2007 is not inconsistent with the Constitution, but it has no jurisdiction to undeclare a declaration of inconsistency made by a competent Court of equal status in 2012.

Outcome

Dismissed with no order on costs

Orders

  • Preliminary Objection dismissed

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act, 2007
  • Constitution of Kenya
Cases cited (3)
  • Samuel Momanyi v Attorney General & Ar (2012) eKLR
  • Nation Media Group Ltd v Onesmus Kilonzo (2017) eKLR
  • Mercy Karingithi case
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case