Geerard Killen v. International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology
Full Case Title: Geerard Killen v. International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology, High Court of Kenya, 27 May 2005
Reference Number: Civil Case 1737/2002
Type of Document: Judicial decisions
International Organization: ICIPE
Year: 2005
Issuing Body: High Court
Country: Kenya
The instant proceeding originates from an employment lawsuit instituted by Geerard Killen against the International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE).
The ICIPE moved to the High Court of Kenya, pleading its jurisdictional immunity under the Privileges and Diplomatic Immunities Act. Mr. Killen argued that ICIPE does not enjoy absolute immunity from legal process and, referring to the precedent of Tononoka Steels v. East African and Southern African Trade and Development Bank, he pointed out that the immunity granted to international organizations does not absolve them from their contractual obligations.
The High Court upheld the ICIPE’s request of dismissal, declaring that national courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute between ICIPE and its employees.
The High Court recognized that ICIPE’s immunity under the Act is not absolute. As it stressed, international organizations are entitled to those immunities that are necessary for the fulfillment of their purposes and objectives (functional immunity). However, the claims brought against ICIPE fell within the scope of its immunity. The Court underlined that the precedent referred to by the claimant concerned a commercial dispute between an international organization and a private company. The facts giving rise to that case did not concern the institutional activities of the respondent organization. By contrast, the case at stake concerns the employment relationship between Mr. Killen and ICIPE.
As affirmed by the Court, the employment relationships between ICIPE and its personnel fall within the activities covered by immunity pursuant to the Privileges and Diplomatic Immunities Act. Immunity from a labour-related claims is necessary to ensure the fulfilment of ICIPE’s institutional functions. Notably, the High Court emphasized that “to lift the view of diplomatic immunity in this case would set a dangerous precedent and would adversely affect the hiring and control of the staff employed to carry out the organizations purposes”.

