[2019] KEELRC 1358 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant's employment contract and all related correspondence, including the letter of confirmation and termination, were issued by the 1st respondent. The claimant admitted there was no direct employment contract with the 2nd respondent. The mere fact that the 1st respondent is a subsidiary...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELRC 1358 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Abiero Peter Okoth; Respondent: Rafiki Micro-Finance Bank Kenya Limited; Respondent: Chase Bank (Kenya) Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 200 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Party
- Outcome
- Application allowed. 2nd respondent struck out of the suit. Costs to the 2nd respondent.
- Judges
- DI Wasike
- Legal Topics
- Employment Relationship, Corporate Personality, Joinder of Parties
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abiero Peter Okoth
Claimant
Rafiki Micro-Finance Bank Kenya Limited
Respondent
Chase Bank (Kenya) Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Party
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 2nd respondent was properly joined as a party to the suit.
- 2 Whether an employment contract existed between the claimant and the 2nd respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the claimant's employment contract and all related correspondence, including the letter of confirmation and termination, were issued by the 1st respondent. The claimant admitted there was no direct employment contract with the 2nd respondent. The mere fact that the 1st respondent is a subsidiary of the 2nd respondent does not transfer contractual obligations to the parent company. Therefore, the 2nd respondent was improperly joined to the suit and should be struck out as a party.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. 2nd respondent struck out of the suit. Costs to the 2nd respondent.
Orders
- The 2nd respondent, Chase Bank (Kenya) Limited, is struck out of the suit.
- Costs awarded to the 2nd respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF
KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NUMBER 200 OF 2018
ABIERO PETER OKOTH..........................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
RAFIKI MICRO-FINANCE BANK
KENYA LIMITED.........................................................1ST RESPONDENT
CHASE BANK (KENYA) LIMITED..........................2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By a motion dated 16th March, 2018 the 2nd respondent sought to be struck out of the suit for the reason that the claimant has never been its employee and that the 1st and 2nd respondents are two distinct companies hence one cannot infer that an employment contract with the 1st responddn tis also binding on the 2nd respondent.
2. The claimant in his replying affidavit admitted that there was no direct employment contract between himself and the 2nd respondent, however his employment contract was as between the 1st respondent which was a subsidiary of the 2nd respondent.
3. The claimant’s letter of confirmation to employment was issued by the 1st respondent. His termination letter was also issued by the 1st respondent. The foregoing coupled by his own admission that his contract of employment was between himself and the 1st respondent clearly shows that the 2nd respondent was improperly joined in the suit.
4. The 1st and 2nd respondent are two distinct corporate personalities and the fact that the 1st respodnent is a subsidiary of the 2nd respondent does not import the 1st respondent’s contractual obligations towards the claimant to the 2nd respondent.
5. The application is therefore allowed with the consequence that the 2nd respondent is struck off the suit. Costs to the 2nd respondent.
6. It is so ordered.
Dated at Nairobi this 14th day of June, 2019
Abuodha J. N.
Judge
Delivered this 14th day of June, 2019
Abuodha J. N.
Judge
In the presence of:-
................................................for the Claimant and
................................................for the Respondent.