[2021] KEELRC 1427 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 1427 (KLR)

The court found that there was no employment relationship between the petitioner and the respondent, as the contract of employment was between the petitioner and Agri & Co-operative Training and Consultancy Services Limited, not the respondent. The respondent was not privy to the employment contract and was not a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 1427 (KLR)
Parties
Petitioner: Dr. Hellen Ethangatta; Respondent: The Co-operative University of Kenya
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition E093 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Applications
Outcome
petition dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
M Mbarũ
Legal Topics
Employment Relationship, Proper Party, Jurisdiction, Striking Out Petition
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Employment Relationship Proper Party Jurisdiction Striking Out Petition

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Hellen Ethangatta

Petitioner

The Co-operative University of Kenya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Applications

  1. 1 Whether there existed an employment relationship between the petitioner and the respondent to justify the petition.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was a proper party to the employment dispute.
  3. 3 Whether the petition should be struck out for lack of reasonable cause of action against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no employment relationship between the petitioner and the respondent, as the contract of employment was between the petitioner and Agri & Co-operative Training and Consultancy Services Limited, not the respondent. The respondent was not privy to the employment contract and was not a proper party to the dispute. The petition did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the respondent, and the attempt to enjoin a third party could not cure the lack of jurisdiction or the fundamental defect in the petition. The petition was therefore an abuse of court process and was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • Application dated 2nd February, 2021 is allowed.
  • Application dated 17th March, 2021 is found to be an abuse of court process.