[2024] KEELRC 1458 (KLR)
The court found that the Respondents, through their own pleadings and documentary evidence, admitted the existence of the 1st Respondent as an employer and the role of the 2nd Respondent as its president. Employment documents, payroll, and termination letters all originated from the 1st Respondent, and the contract...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELRC 1458 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Eunice Hasango Kaumbi; Respondent: Tegla Loroupe Peace Fondation; Respondent: Ms Tegla Loroupe
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E246 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Dismissal, Proper Parties, Capacity to Sue and Be Sued, Employment Contract, Preliminary Objection
- 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
Eunice Hasango Kaumbi
Applicant
Tegla Loroupe Peace Fondation
Respondent
Ms Tegla Loroupe
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st Respondent exists in law and is a proper party to the suit.
- 2 Whether the 2nd Respondent is improperly joined to the claim.
- 3 Whether the Respondents had the capacity to employ and terminate the Claimant and thus be sued.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Respondents, through their own pleadings and documentary evidence, admitted the existence of the 1st Respondent as an employer and the role of the 2nd Respondent as its president. Employment documents, payroll, and termination letters all originated from the 1st Respondent, and the contract of employment was between the Claimant and the 1st Respondent. The Respondents' capacity to employ and terminate the Claimant established their capacity to be sued. The preliminary objection, which challenged the existence and proper joinder of the Respondents, was therefore without merit. The court declined the preliminary objection and held that the Respondents were properly...
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed
Orders
- The preliminary objection is declined.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Kaumbi v Tegla Loroupe Peace Fondation & another (Cause E246 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 1458 (KLR) (14 June 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELRC 1458 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause E246 of 2021
J Rika, J
June 14, 2024
Between
Eunice Hasango Kaumbi
Claimant
and
Tegla Loroupe Peace Fondation
1st Respondent
Ms Tegla Loroupe
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. The Claimant filed her Statement of Claim on 22nd March 2021. She states that she was employed by the 1st Respondent as the Chief Executive Officer [CEO].
2. The 2nd Respondent is world-renowned former marathoner, and long-distance runner. The Claimant states that the 2nd Respondent owns the 1st Respondent.
3. The Claimant states that she was unfairly and unlawfully dismissed by the Respondents, on 30th November 2020.
4. She presented the Claim herein, seeking a raft of terminal benefits, compensatory award, and damages.
5. The Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 24th January 2024. They state that the Claim is incompetent, as no proper 1st Respondent has been sued or named; the 1st Respondent is non-existent; and the 2nd Respondent is wrongfully joined to the Claim.
6. It was agreed by the Parties on 9th February 2024, that the P.O. is considered and determined, on the strength of the record. They confirmed filing and exchange of submissions at the last appearance on 4th April 2024.
The Court Finds: - 7. The pleadings and documents so far presented before the Court, do not support the P.O.
8. At paragraph 2 of the Statement of Response, the Respondents both admit the description of the Parties, pleaded in the Statement of Claim, and concede that the Claimant was employed by the 1st Respondent.
9. They also plead at paragraph 3, that the 1st Respondent is a non-profit donor funded organization, while the 2nd Respondent is the 1st Respondent’s president.
10. The contract of employment signed by the Parties on 2nd January 2009, was signed between the 1st Respondent and the Claimant. Internal communications issued to Employees, including the Claimant, originated from the 1st Respondent’s Management. There is a payroll document, drawn in the name of the 1st Respondent. The Claimant was suspended on 14th August 2020, by the 1st Respondent. A letter to show cause was issued to her by the 1st Respondent. The letter of termination, subject matter of the Claim, dated 3rd December 2020, issued in the name of the 1st Respondent. The Claimant was told that her contract was terminated following a meeting of the 1st Respondent’s Board of Trustees.
11. How is it then, that the 1st Respondent does not exist in law, to respond to this Claim? How is the 1st Respondent’s president improperly joined to the Claim? If the Respondents had the capacity to employ and terminate employment, how are they later deprived of the capacity to be sued? There is prima facie evidence, to show that the Respondents employed the Claimant, within the meaning of the term ‘Employer,’ contained in Section 2 of the Employment Act, and have been properly sued. The P.O. has no merit.
IT IS ORDERED: -a.The P.O. is declined.b.Costs in the cause.
Dated, signed and released to the Parties electronically at Nairobi, under Practice Direction 6[2] of the Electronic Case Management Practice Directions, 2020, this 14th day of June 2024. James RikaJudge2