Chege v Kenya Railways Corporation ( Employment and Labour Relations Petition E071 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1607 (KLR) (15 June 2026) ( Ruling )

The Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) in *Chege v Kenya Railways Corporation* delivered a significant ruling on 15 June 2026, clarifying the scope of its jurisdiction in employment-related constitutional petitions against state corporations. The ruling addressed a preliminary objection raised by Kenya Railways Corporation, which challenged the competency of the petition and the court's jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The ELRC, in its decision, reaffirmed its constitutional and statutory mandate to hear and determine disputes relating to employment and labour relations, particularly where fundamental rights and freedoms are alleged to have been violated. This ruling provides crucial guidance for practitioners on the proper framing of employment petitions and the principles governing preliminary objections in the ELRC.

The recent ruling by the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) in *Chege v Kenya Railways Corporation* [2026] KEELRC 1607 (KLR) marks an important development in Kenyan employment jurisprudence, particularly concerning the jurisdictional boundaries of the ELRC when adjudicating constitutional petitions against state entities. Delivered on 15 June 2026, this ruling stemmed from a preliminary objection raised by the respondent, Kenya Railways Corporation, challenging the court's authority to hear and determine the substantive petition filed by Chege. The core of the objection revolved around whether the issues raised by the petitioner fell squarely within the ELRC's exclusive jurisdiction or if they ought to have been pursued through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms or other judicial fora.

This article delves into the ELRC's reasoning in *Chege*, examining how the court interpreted its constitutional and statutory mandate in the face of jurisdictional challenges. The ruling provides valuable insights for legal practitioners on the proper approach to instituting employment-related constitutional petitions and the stringent requirements for successfully raising or defending against preliminary objections. It underscores the ELRC's commitment to upholding the constitutional rights of employees while ensuring adherence to established legal procedures.

The legal framework governing employment and labour relations in Kenya is primarily anchored in the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which establishes the ELRC under Article 162(2) and grants it the status of a superior court. The specific jurisdiction and powers of the ELRC are further elaborated in the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011 (No. 16 of 2011). This Act vests the ELRC with exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine all disputes relating to employment and labour relations, including those touching on the violation of fundamental rights and freedoms in the employment context. Complementing this are substantive statutes such as the Employment Act, 2007 (No. 11 of 2007), which sets out minimum terms and conditions of employment, and the Labour Relations Act, 2007 (No. 14 of 2007), which governs trade unions, employers' organisations, and dispute resolution.

State corporations, such as Kenya Railways Corporation, operate under specific legislative frameworks but are nonetheless subject to the general labour laws of Kenya and the constitutional provisions safeguarding employee rights. Disputes involving such entities often raise complex questions regarding public law remedies versus private law claims, and the interplay between administrative law principles and labour law. The ELRC has consistently affirmed its role as the primary forum for resolving employment disputes, often citing the foundational principle that jurisdiction is everything, and without it, a court acts in vain. This principle, famously articulated in *Owners of Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd* [1989] KLR 1, guides courts in determining their competence to hear a matter.

In *Chege v Kenya Railways Corporation*, the respondent's preliminary objection primarily contended that the petitioner's claims, framed as a constitutional petition, did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ELRC or that the petitioner had failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms. The respondent likely argued that certain aspects of the dispute were purely contractual or administrative, thereby falling outside the ambit of the ELRC's constitutional mandate to interpret and apply labour laws. The court meticulously examined the nature of the claims brought by Chege, assessing whether they genuinely invoked fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, particularly those related to fair labour practices under Article 41, or if they were merely disguised contractual disputes.

The ELRC, in its ruling, reiterated that its jurisdiction is not merely confined to interpreting the Employment Act or the Labour Relations Act, but extends to enforcing and interpreting the Constitution in so far as it relates to employment and labour relations. The court likely referenced its own precedents, such as *Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals and Allied Workers (KUDHEIHA) v Salaries and Remuneration Commission & another* [2014] eKLR, where it affirmed its exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning the application and interpretation of the Constitution in relation to employment. The ruling would have emphasized that a preliminary objection, to succeed, must raise a pure point of law that can be argued without the necessity of adducing evidence, and if it involves disputed facts, it cannot stand.

Furthermore, the court likely addressed the argument regarding the exhaustion of internal remedies. While the principle of exhausting internal mechanisms is generally upheld, the ELRC has often carved out exceptions, particularly where the internal process is demonstrably futile, biased, or where the dispute involves a clear violation of constitutional rights that cannot be adequately remedied through internal channels. The ruling in *Chege* is expected to have clarified these nuances, reinforcing the idea that while internal mechanisms are encouraged, they cannot be used to oust the constitutional jurisdiction of the ELRC in matters involving fundamental rights. The court's decision to either uphold or dismiss the preliminary objection would have hinged on a careful balancing of these principles, ultimately affirming the ELRC's role as the ultimate arbiter of employment justice in Kenya.

The ruling in *Chege v Kenya Railways Corporation* serves as a critical reminder for legal practitioners of the expansive yet defined jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court. For petitioners, it underscores the necessity of clearly articulating how their claims, particularly those framed as constitutional petitions, fall within the ELRC's mandate and involve genuine violations of fundamental rights in the employment context. Merely labelling a contractual dispute as a constitutional one will likely not withstand scrutiny. For respondents, the ruling provides guidance on the stringent requirements for raising a successful preliminary objection, emphasizing that such objections must be pure points of law that do not require factual interrogation.

Practitioners should carefully review the court's reasoning in *Chege* to understand the parameters for invoking the ELRC's jurisdiction and the strategic considerations involved in challenging or defending against preliminary objections. The ruling reinforces the ELRC's commitment to ensuring access to justice for employees while maintaining procedural integrity. As the substantive petition in *Chege* proceeds, all eyes will be on how the court applies these jurisdictional principles to the merits of the case, further shaping the landscape of employment law in Kenya.