META PLATFORMS, INC. & ANOTHER v DANIEL MOTAUNG & OTHERS, CIVIL APPEAL NO. E232 & E445 OF 2023
The Court of Appeal recently dismissed two appeals by META, in which the company had challenged the jurisdiction of Kenyan courts. These appeals stemmed from a petition filed in the Employment and Labour Relations Court by Daniel Motaung and over 100 other petitioners, alleging rights violations in the context of their employment as Facebook content moderators. The petition was brought against Samasource EPZ and META.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In ELRC Petition No. E071 of 2022, Daniel Motaung, on behalf of himself and other current and former Facebook content moderators employed by Samasource Kenya EPZ Limited (Sama), sued Meta Platforms Inc., Meta Platforms Ireland, and Sama. The petition alleged poor working conditions, unfair labor practices, and violations of fundamental rights. Motaung sought several remedies, including a declaration that Meta and Sama had jointly and severally breached constitutional rights under various provisions, including Articles 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 41, 43, 46, 47, 50, 54, and 55 of the Constitution.
LEGAL ISSUES
- Jurisdiction of the court
The appellants argued that the ELRC lacked jurisdiction over them as they are foreign entities not domiciled in Kenya. The respondents claimed that Meta has a virtual presence in Kenya through its Facebook operations and generates revenue from Kenyan users, thereby making Meta subject to Kenyan law. - Service of summons
The appellants averred that they were not properly served with summons outside the jurisdiction, which was a prerequisite for the court to assume jurisdiction over them. In response, the content moderators argued that they obtained proper leave after the ELRC granted leave to serve the appellants in their principal offices in the United States of America. - Extension of interim orders
The ELRC issued ex-parte interim orders to preserve the status quo pending the hearing of applications. The appellants challenged the extension of these orders beyond the stipulated period. In response, the content moderators argued that Rule 17 does not pertain to constitutional petitions. They asserted that the ELRC operated under Article 23(3) of the Constitution, which empowers courts to provide appropriate relief, including the extension of interim orders to prevent constitutional violations. - Preliminary Objection
The appellants raised preliminary objections, seeking to strike out the petitions on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and other procedural deficiencies. The ELRC dismissed the preliminary objections, stating that they did not raise pure points of law but involved contested facts that needed to be resolved in a full hearing. - Employer – Employee relationship
Meta argued that the content moderators were employed by Sama, not by Meta directly, and therefore there was no contractual relationship between the moderators and Meta. In response, the moderators claimed that Meta exerted control over their work through Sama and should be held liable for any harm they suffered.
JUDGMENT
- Jurisdiction of the court
The Court dismissed Meta’s argument that it was exempt from Kenyan jurisdiction, stating that its virtual presence and operations in the country made it subject to Kenyan laws. The court pointed out that Meta, through Facebook, engages with millions of Kenyan users and generates revenue, thereby effectively “carrying on business” in Kenya. Consequently, the ELRC had the authority to hear the case. - Service of summons
On whether the appellants were properly served with summons outside the jurisdiction, the court held that the respondents had followed the proper procedure in serving Meta. Furthermore, Meta had engaged with the process through legal counsel, and any failure in procedural aspects was not sufficiently grave to warrant dismissal of the petition. - Extension of interim orders
The ELRC’s decision to extend the interim orders was upheld. The court stated that constitutional petitions under Article 23(3) of the Constitution grant broad discretionary powers to safeguard rights while awaiting a full hearing of the case and that the ELRC acted within its jurisdiction in extending the orders. - Preliminary objections
The court dismissed the preliminary objections, stating that they did not raise pure points of law but involved contested facts
ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION
The court’s decision has significant implications for the public by enhancing worker protections and holding multinational corporations accountable for their practices in Kenya, regardless of their foreign status. It reinforces the ability of workers to seek legal redress for rights violations and encourages access to justice through constitutional petitions. The ruling also increases scrutiny of digital platforms operating in Kenya, potentially leading to legal precedents regarding labor rights and prompting policymakers to consider reforms that strengthen protections in the digital sector. Overall, it underscores a commitment to upholding workers’ rights and ensuring that foreign companies comply with local laws.
For enquiries about litigating digital rights or labour disputes in Kenya, please contact bond@bondadvocates.com
