[2024] KEELRC 964 (KLR)
The court found that the Claimant's attempt to amend the claim to join the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents as parties, after the court had already declined to lift the corporate veil, was an attempt to circumvent the court's earlier findings. The court held that the threshold for lifting the corporate veil had not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELRC 964 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Seth Abunda; Respondent: Brandworld Communications Limited; Respondent: Kirimi Rintaugu; Respondent: Susan Wamuyu Kanafunzi; Respondent: Catherine Nthenya Kimeu
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E897 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Chamber Summons to Strike Out Claim Against 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents
- Outcome
- Application allowed; 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents struck out from proceedings.
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Lifting Corporate Veil, Abuse of Court Process
- 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
Seth Abunda
Applicant
Brandworld Communications Limited
Respondent
Kirimi Rintaugu
Respondent
Susan Wamuyu Kanafunzi
Respondent
Catherine Nthenya Kimeu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Chamber Summons to Strike Out Claim Against 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents are properly joined as parties to the suit.
- 2 Whether the Claimant has disclosed a cause of action against the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents.
- 3 Whether the attempt to amend the claim to include directors and shareholders constitutes an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Claimant's attempt to amend the claim to join the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents as parties, after the court had already declined to lift the corporate veil, was an attempt to circumvent the court's earlier findings. The court held that the threshold for lifting the corporate veil had not been met, and that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents, being mere directors, shareholders, or secretary of the 1st Respondent, had no personal liability in the absence of specific allegations or evidence of wrongdoing. The court concluded that the continued inclusion of these parties was a clear abuse of the court process and allowed the application to strike out the claim against...
Court Disposition
Application allowed; 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents struck out from proceedings.
Orders
- The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents are removed from these proceedings.
- The costs of the application will be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Abunda v Brandworld Communications Limited & 3 others (Cause E897 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 964 (KLR) (2 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELRC 964 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause E897 of 2022
L Ndolo, J
May 2, 2024
Between
Seth Abunda
Claimant
and
Brandworld Communications Limited
1st Respondent
Kirimi Rintaugu
2nd Respondent
Susan Wamuyu Kanafunzi
3rd Respondent
Catherine Nthenya Kimeu
4th Respondent
Ruling
1. By their Chamber Summons application dated 14th December 2023, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents seek orders striking out the Claimant’s claim, as against them.
2. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the 1st Respondent, Kirimi Rintaugu and is based on the following grounds:a.That on 23rd November 2023, the Court rejected the Claimant’s plea to join the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents in the claim;b.That the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents are improperly joined as parties to the suit;c.That the 2nd and 3rd Respondents were merely shareholders and directors in the 1st Respondent, while the 4th Respondent was a secretary and they do not have any interest in the 1st Respondent Company;d.That no cause of action has been disclosed as against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents.
3. The Claimant opposes the application by his replying affidavit sworn on 15th February 2024. He depones that the Court allowed him to amend his claim to include all the directors of the Company. He points out that in his application seeking amendment of the claim, he had attached a draft amended Memorandum of Claim, which included the Respondents.
4. The Claimant asserts that the Respondents, having failed to raise an objection upon being served with the application seeking amendment of the claim, are estopped from objecting to the amendment at this stage.
5. In its ruling delivered on 23rd November 2023, this Court declined the Claimant’s plea to lift the corporate veil, on the ground that the threshold for such an order had not been met.
6. By his proposed amendment, whose effect will be to join directors and shareholders of the 1st Respondent, the Claimant seeks to circumvent the findings of the Court on this issue. This is a clear abuse of the court process and the only order to make is to allow the application by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents, with the result that they are removed from these proceedings.
7. The costs of the application will be in the cause.
8. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 2NDDAY OF MAY 2024LINNET NDOLOJUDGEAppearanceMs. Said for the ClaimantMr. Ombati for the Respondents