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

KHAEMBA PATRICK WANYONYI v TEACHERS SERVICE COMMISSION [2013] KEHC 6083 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 6083 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
6083
Citation
[2013] KEHC 6083 (KLR)
Decided
11 April 2013
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil SuitPostureAppeal from the High Court's decision to transfer the case to the Industrial CourtCoramF. GIKONYO
Holding

The High Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case, and the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter

Facts

The Plaintiff, Khaemba Patrick Wanyonyi, was an employee of the Defendant, Teachers Service Commission. In April 2011, he was subjected to a disciplinary process but the results were quashed by the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the case
  2. Whether the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to hear the case

Reasoning

The court ruled that the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to hear the case due to the transitional mechanism provided in the Constitution and the Industrial Court Act, and the fact that the Industrial Court is fully operational.

Outcome

The case was transferred to the Industrial Court

Orders

  • The case was transferred to the Industrial Court sitting in Bungoma County

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Industrial Court Act
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Cases cited (6)
  • OWNERS OF MOTOR VESSEL 'LILLIAN S' v CALTEX OIL (K) LTD [1989] KLR 1
  • Kipkursi Lagat v. Police Commissioner & Another [2012] e KLR
  • Brookside Dairy Ltd v AG & another [2012] e KLR
  • Chars Karisa Thoya v R [2011] e KLR
  • Orengo v Moi [2008] 1 KLR (ep)
  • Rodgers Ondieki Nyakundi v R [2012] e KLR
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