Automated Summary
Key Facts
The claimants (nine individuals from Kenya and Sri Lanka) sought unpaid wages, disbursements, repatriation costs, and damages from the owners of the fishing vessel F.V. MAAB AQUA 2. The High Court ruled it had admiralty jurisdiction over the claim, dismissing the defendant's application to strike out the case and set aside the vessel's arrest. The court emphasized that claims for seafarers' wages under admiralty law fall under its jurisdiction, not the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
Issues
- The court was asked to determine if wage claims by seafarers should be adjudicated by the High Court under admiralty jurisdiction or by the Employment and Labour Relations Court, considering the constitutional provisions and relevant statutes. The defendant argued the claim fell under the Employment Court, while the claimants maintained it was an admiralty matter.
- The court assessed if its jurisdiction to handle the admiralty claim was usurped by the Employment and Labour Relations Court's jurisdiction, as per constitutional articles and statutory provisions, particularly the Judicature Act and Senior Courts Act. The defendant cited constitutional provisions (e.g., Article 165(5)(b)) to argue the High Court lacked authority, but the court rejected this.
- The ruling examined whether the wage claims are part of an admiralty action, which allows for in rem proceedings against the vessel, or an employment dispute requiring in personam proceedings against the employer. The court emphasized that claims for wages in maritime contexts are admiralty matters under English law and the Judicature Act.
Holdings
The court dismissed the defendant's application to strike out the claim, affirming the High Court's jurisdiction over admiralty matters including claims for wages and maritime liens. The court held that admiralty jurisdiction is conferred by statute (section 4 of the Judicature Act) and that claims for seafarers' wages and disbursements fall under this jurisdiction. The Employment and Labour Relations Court was found to lack admiralty jurisdiction, and the High Court retains exclusive authority to handle such in rem actions.
Remedies
- The warrant to arrest the motor vessel 'F.V. MAAB AQUA 2' remains in effect. The court confirmed the validity of the arrest as a remedy for unpaid wages and other claims, pending the hearing and determination of the main application.
- The court dismissed the applicant's application to set aside the arrest warrant and strike out the claim. The court ruled that it retains jurisdiction over the admiralty matter and that the claim is not an employment dispute subject to the Employment and Labour Relations Court. Costs will abide the outcome of the main claim.
- The court rejected the argument that the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction over the claim. It emphasized that claims for wages in admiralty matters fall under the High Court's jurisdiction as per the Judicature Act and Senior Courts Act, and the claim will proceed in this court.
- The costs of the defendant's application will be determined based on the outcome of the main claim. No specific costs were awarded at this stage of the ruling.
Legal Principles
The High Court's exclusive admiralty jurisdiction under section 4 of the Judicature Act includes claims for seafarers' wages and maritime liens. The court held that admiralty claims in rem (against a vessel) cannot be conflated with employment disputes in personam. Jurisdiction over maritime matters is statutory and cannot be implied or transferred to other courts like the Employment and Labour Relations Court, which lacks admiralty jurisdiction. The ruling emphasized that claims for wages with maritime context (e.g., ship-based employment) fall under admiralty law, not employment law, and that maritime liens are enforceable through in rem actions.
Precedent Name
- Macharia and another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited and 2 others
- Didovsky Igor & 11 Others v International Bulk Carrier SPA & 2 Others
- Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
Cited Statute
- Senior Courts Act, 1981 of England
- Constitution of the Republic of Kenya
- Judicature Act, Cap 8, Laws of Kenya
- Merchant Shipping Act, 2009 of Kenya
- 1952 International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Arrest of Sea-going Ships
- Maritime Zones Act, Cap 371, Laws of Kenya
- Maritime Labour Convention, 2006
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Judge Name
Ngaa Jairus
Passage Text
- 64. The other flaw in the applicant's submission is the presumption that since the admiralty jurisdiction is now shared between the Employment and Labour Relations Court and this Honourable Court, a claimant who would otherwise properly lodge a composite claim in the admiralty court is now enjoined to proceed in a truncated manner, filing one suit in this Honourable Court and filing another claim, against the same defendant, for wages, in an Employment and Labour Relations Court.
- 69. For the reasons I have given, I dismiss the applicant's application. Costs will abide the outcome of the claim.
- 58. This is why 'any claim by a master or member of the crew of a ship for wages (including any sum allotted out of wages or adjudged by a superintendent to be due by way of wages) or any claim by a master, shipper, charterer or agent in respect of disbursements made on account of a ship' is not prescribed as an employment and labour relations matter under section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act; it is an admiralty matter under section 20 (2) (o) and (p) of the Senior Court Act, 1981.