Apollo Mboya had asked the Employment and Labour Relations Court to restrain the company, the board of directors’ chairperson Brigadier (Rtd) Richard Mbithi and its managing director Mohamed Osman, from disposing of the firm’s 14 plots of land.
Mr Mboya had picked issue with Mr Osman’s powers to authorise the sale, informing the court that “the assets of the company are in danger of being irregularly alienated by an individual masquerading as the acting managing director”.
However, Justice Byram Ongaya upheld the objections raised by the Portland, Brigadier Mbithi and Mr Osman, who questioned the authority of the court to deal with the issues raised by Mr Mboya.
Through Adrian Kamotho Njenga & Company Advocates, the cement maker, its board chair and the managing director said Mr Osman was properly appointed as the MD on February 12, 2025. They said he was not a masquerader as alleged by Mr Mboya.
“Since the appointment he has neither been terminated as per the terms of the contract nor revoked, annulled or terminated by a court of law. He is the duly appointed MD of the company and therefore he has the capacity and authority to perform the duties of the said office and is not a masquerader as alleged by the applicant,” they said.
Alongside Hashim & Lesaigor Associates, the respondents argued that the disposal of assets, specifically land, by a public entity such as Portland Cement, is not an employment matter.
They said the disposal is governed by the provisions of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act and the Land Act.
“This court has jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to employment and labour relations. Given that the dispute as filed on April 3, 2025 revolves around the disposal of land, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the said application,” they told the judge.
They added that the proper forum for the dispute should have been the Environment and Land Court or the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB). These two entities are mandated to hear and determine any dispute, grievance, right or breach arising from land disposal by a public body.
“The applicant has provided no material basis to defeat the preliminary objection that the subject matter of the application being sale of land, the court lacks jurisdiction,” the judge said in dismissing the petition.
Lawyer Mboya took legal action after the company published its annual report and financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2024, which confirmed the intention to dispose of land assets.
As part of a strategy to address financial liquidity challenges, the company plans to dispose of 907 acres of land previously occupied by squatters.
