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

Uchendu v Smec International Pty Limited & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E153 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2847 (KLR) (9 November 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KEELRC 2847 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
2847
Citation
[2023] KEELRC 2847 (KLR)
Decided
9 November 2023
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

TypeEmployment and Labour RelationsPostureRespondents filed a preliminary objection based on clause 17 of the letter of appointment.CoramBOM MANANI
The court dismissed the preliminary objection as the parties agreed the contract was governed by Singapore law and disputes would be adjudicated in Singapore courts. The court did not invalidate the choice of forum clause.

Facts

The claimant, Uchendu, alleges unfair termination by the 1st respondent, Smec International Pty Limited, under the guise of operational requirements. The respondents argue the case should be dismissed as it was filed in a court with no jurisdiction due to the choice of Singapore law and Singapore courts for dispute resolution.

Issues

  • Jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court
  • Choice of Law and Forum Clause

Reasoning

The court found the contract was governed by Singapore law and the parties agreed to Singapore courts for dispute resolution. The court did not invalidate the clause as the claimant did not present evidence of undue influence or coercion.

Outcome

The preliminary objection was dismissed.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (2)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 696
  • National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Pipeplastic Samkolit (K) Ltd & another (2001) eKLR
⚠ 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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case