In Touch Sports Limited v Kenya Rugby Union [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Radido Stephen
Judgment Date
October 29, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3



Case Brief: In Touch Sports Limited v Kenya Rugby Union [2020] eKLR


1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: In Touch Sports Limited v. Kenya Rugby Union
- Case Number: Cause No. 1102 of 2017
- Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Date Delivered: 29 October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Radido Stephen
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues the court must resolve are:
- Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute regarding the management fees claimed by the Claimant.
- Whether the Arbitration Award made by Mr. Arthur K. Igeria should be set aside.
- Whether the Arbitration Award should be adopted as a judgment of the court.

3. Facts of the Case:
In 2013, In Touch Sports Ltd (Claimant), a sports management and sponsorship company, negotiated with Kenya Rugby Union (Respondent) to recruit coaches for the Kenya National Rugby team. The Claimant represented three coaches, and the Respondent entered into service contracts with them around October 2013. The Claimant and the Respondent also signed a contract for the payment of yearly management fees based on the coaches' salaries. The Claimant issued several invoices for these fees, but the Respondent failed to make payments. Consequently, on 15 June 2017, the Claimant filed a suit regarding the unpaid management fees. The parties subsequently agreed to arbitration, which resulted in a favorable ruling for the Claimant. The Claimant then sought to have the arbitral award adopted by the court.

4. Procedural History:
After the Claimant filed the suit, the parties consented to arbitration, which the court adopted. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the Claimant. On 29 January 2020, the Claimant filed a Chamber Summons to have the arbitral award adopted, which included a request for payment of USD 37,125 plus interest. The Respondent filed a preliminary objection claiming the court lacked jurisdiction over commercial disputes and sought a stay of proceedings and to set aside the arbitral award. The court directed that all applications be taken together, and the parties submitted their arguments.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court's jurisdiction is outlined in Article 162(2) of the Constitution and is further defined in the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Employment Act, 2007, and Labour Relations Act, 2007. These statutes establish the court's jurisdiction over disputes between employers and employees.
- Case Law: The court referenced the case of *National Bank of Kenya Ltd v. Leonard Gethoi Kamweti (2019) eKLR*, which underscored the limits of jurisdiction in similar disputes. The court also noted inconsistent positions from the Court of Appeal regarding jurisdictional matters, particularly in *Phoenix E.A. Assurance Company Ltd v. S.M. Thiga t/a Newspaper Service (2019) eKLR* and *Daniel N Mugendi v. Kenyatta University & 3 Ors (2013) eKLR*.
- Application: The court found that the relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent did not constitute an employer/employee relationship or a trade union dispute, as the Claimant acted merely as an agent negotiating for the coaches. Consequently, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction over the Claimant's cause of action, which was based on a contract for management fees rather than a contract of service.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and could not adopt the arbitral award. The court ordered the case to be transferred to the High Court for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for proper jurisdictional handling of the matter.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions recorded in this case.

8. Summary:
The Employment and Labour Relations Court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the dispute between In Touch Sports Ltd and Kenya Rugby Union regarding management fees. The court ordered the transfer of the case to the High Court, highlighting the importance of jurisdictional boundaries in civil disputes. This ruling underscores the complexities of agency relationships in employment contexts and the necessity for clear jurisdictional definitions in legal proceedings.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • In-Touch-Sports-Limited-v-Kenya-Rugby-Union-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2637_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries