Employment and Labour Relations Court stays proceedings in the magistrate's court on account of a possible lack of jurisdiction in the magistrate's court.

Background:

The appellant, African Marine and General Engineering Company Limited, represented by the firm of Okello Kinyanjui and Company LLP, filed an application on 5 December 2024 seeking a stay of proceedings in Mombasa CMELRC No. E273 of 2024 pending the hearing and determination of an appeal against the ruling delivered on 28 October 2024. The ruling in question addressed objections raised under Section 89 of the Employment Act, where the appellant contended that Kang'a Job Phillip's (the respondent) suit was time-barred, thus rendering the trial court without jurisdiction to hear the claim.

The appellant argued that the respondent filed the suit on 9 May 2024, which was out of time according to Section 89 of the Employment Act. However, the trial court erroneously held that the suit was filed on 3 May 2024, within the permissible time frame. The appellant, aggrieved by this ruling, filed an appeal and sought a stay of proceedings to prevent the trial court from rendering a judgment before the appeal on jurisdiction and timeliness could be addressed.

The respondent, in reply, contended that the suit was filed on 3 May 2024, within the statutory time limit, and that the trial court had correctly dismissed the appellant's preliminary objections. The respondent argued that a stay of proceedings would unjustly delay the case and cause him undue prejudice.

Issue for Determination:

The sole issue for determination was whether the court should grant a stay of proceedings before the trial court pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

Analysis:

Legal Principles on Stay of Proceedings:

A stay of proceedings is a serious judicial action that interferes with a party's right to conduct litigation and access justice. It should be granted sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.

The court must balance the interests of both parties, ensuring that the appellant's right to a fair appeal is protected while minimizing prejudice to the respondent.

Merits of the Appeal:The appeal raises significant questions of law regarding the application of Section 89 of the Employment Act, particularly whether the suit was time-barred and whether the trial court has jurisdiction to hear the claim.

If the appeal succeeds, it could render the proceedings before the trial court null and void due to lack of jurisdiction. Conversely, if the appeal fails, the trial court can proceed with the case.

Balance of Convenience:

Granting a stay of proceedings would allow the appellate court to first determine the jurisdictional issue, which is fundamental to the case. This would prevent the trial court from potentially rendering a judgment in a matter where it may lack jurisdiction.

On the other hand, denying the stay could result in the trial court proceeding with a case that might later be found to be time-barred, causing unnecessary litigation and potential injustice.

Prejudice to the Parties:

The appellant stands to suffer substantial loss if the trial court proceeds and renders a judgment before the appeal is heard, as this could render the appeal nugatory.

The respondent, while desiring expeditious resolution of the case, would not suffer irreparable harm from a temporary stay, especially given the serious jurisdictional questions raised by the appellant.

Conclusion:

In light of the above, the court found that the application for a stay of proceedings had merit. The appeal raised critical issues of jurisdiction and timeliness that must be resolved before the trial court can proceed. Granting the stay will ensure that the appeal is not rendered meaningless and will provide clarity on whether the trial court has jurisdiction to hear the case.

Our comments

The court made a proper balance between the need of the respondent to have its suit proceed in the lower court and the necessity to ensure that the lower court does not proceed with a suit in which it has no jurisdiction to proceed. The court correctly analyzed the principles for the grant of an order of stay of proceedings.

The decision is available on the following link, i.e., https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/812/eng@2025-03-06