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

Intercontinental Consultant and Technocrats v Matheka & another (Employment and Labour Relations Judicial Review E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 876 (KLR) (13 March 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KEELRC 876 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
876
Citation
[2025] KEELRC 876 (KLR)
Decided
13 March 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureAppeal from a previous rulingCoramMN NDUMA, Ndolo
Holding

The court finds that the application is res judicata and lacks jurisdiction due to the Applicant's failure to follow the procedural requirements of the Work Injury Benefits Act.

Facts

The Applicant, Intercontinental Consultant and Technocrats, sought a declaration that there was no employer-employee relationship with the 1st Respondent, Margaret Mumbua Matheka, and set aside an award of Kshs. 2,500,615.00 issued by the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services. The 1st Respondent, Matheka, had previously filed a suit and an application to enforce the award, which the Applicant opposed.

Issues

  1. Res judicata and jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court
  2. Procedural requirements under the Work Injury Benefits Act

Reasoning

The court upholds the preliminary objection that the matter is res judicata and that the Applicant failed to lodge an objection within sixty days of the award as required by the Work Injury Benefits Act.

Outcome

The application is struck off for lack of jurisdiction and res judicata.

Orders

  • The application is struck off for lack of jurisdiction and res judicata.
  • The Applicant is ordered to meet the costs of the application.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Work Injury Benefits Act, 2007
  • Fair Administrative Action Act
Cases cited (1)
  • Owners of the Motor Vessel „Lillian S
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.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case