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

Khisa v Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union (Petition E25 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2943 (KLR) (17 November 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KEELRC 2943 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
2943
Citation
[2023] KEELRC 2943 (KLR)
Decided
17 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

TypePetition for Declaration of Violation of Constitutional RightsPostureRespondent filed a notice of preliminary objection on a point of law applicationCoramBYRAM ONGAYA
The preliminary objection is dismissed with costs, and the matter is directed for further directions for expeditious determination of the petition.

Facts

Petitioner Meshack Khisa alleged that his rights and fundamental freedoms were violated by the Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union.

Issues

  • Whether the petition is trapped by the principle of constitutional avoidance
  • Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the petition

Reasoning

The Court found that the preliminary objection is procedural and does not meet the threshold for a point of law objection. The issues of constitutional violations are to be determined after taking evidence.

Outcome

Petition E25 of 2023 dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Petition E25 of 2023 dismissed with costs
  • Matters directed for further directions for expeditious determination of the petition

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Act, 2010
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Cases cited (3)
  • Communication Commission of Kenya & 5 others v. Royal Media Services Ltd (2014) 2 KLR 14
  • Mukisa Biscuits Co. Ltd v. West-end distributors ltd (1966) EA 696
  • Avatar Sing Bhamra & Another v. Oriental Commercial Bank, Kisumu High Court Civil case No. 53 of 2004
⚠ 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