Katatsa v Mumias Sugar Company Limited (Cause 608 of 2015) [2022] KEELRC 1188 (KLR) (6 July 2022) (Ruling)
- Court
- Employment & Labour Relations Court
- Case number
- 1188
- Citation
- [2022] KEELRC 1188 (KLR)
- Decided
- 6 July 2022
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeApplication to Continue Proceedings Against a Company Under ReceivershipPostureRespondent's Preliminary Objection to Claimant's Application for Leave to Continue Proceedings Against Respondent (Under Receivership)CoramMA ONYANGO
Holding
The respondent's preliminary objection succeeds, and the claimant's application is dismissed.
Facts
Claimant filed a suit on April 15, 2015, against Respondent, a company placed under receivership in 2019.
Issues
- Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to continue proceedings against a company under receivership.
- Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to continue proceedings against a company under insolvency as defined by the Insolvency Act.
Reasoning
The court held that the Employment and Labour Relations Court has no jurisdiction to grant leave to continue proceedings against a company under receivership as defined by the Insolvency Act, which defines the court as the High Court or the insolvency division of the High Court.
Outcome
Application dismissed
Orders
- Application for leave to continue proceedings against Respondent (under receivership) dismissed.
- No orders for costs of the application or the preliminary objection.
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Insolvency Act
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Cases cited (5)
- Fredrick Okoth Owino v T.S.S. Grain Millers
- Nakumatt Holdings Limited & another v Ideal Locations Limited
- Shee Hamisi Mashipa v Mare Nostrum Limited
- Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
- Samuel Kamau Macharia & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 others
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Loading judgment…