[2024] KEELRC 1528 (KLR)
The court held that both applications were unnecessary and procedurally irregular. The Claimant should have sought a hearing date without filing an application for formal proof, while the Respondent, if disputing employment, was required to file a Statement of Response before seeking to strike out the claim. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELRC 1528 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Edward Sagini Keana; Respondent: Quavatel Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E704 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications
- Outcome
- Interlocutory applications dismissed; Respondent granted leave to file Statement of Response within 14 days.
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Statement of Response, Proper Parties, Formal Proof, Striking Out, Employment Relationship
- 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
Edward Sagini Keana
Applicant
Quavatel Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to proceed to formal proof due to the Respondent's failure to file a Statement of Response.
- 2 Whether the Respondent's application to dismiss the Claim for being wrongly sued is proper without a Statement of Response.
- 3 Whether the applications filed by both parties are procedurally necessary.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that both applications were unnecessary and procedurally irregular. The Claimant should have sought a hearing date without filing an application for formal proof, while the Respondent, if disputing employment, was required to file a Statement of Response before seeking to strike out the claim. The court found that the employment relationship could only be clarified through proper pleadings and trial of facts. Accordingly, the Respondent was granted 14 days to file its Statement of Response, failing which the matter would proceed to formal proof. No order was made as to costs.
Court Disposition
Interlocutory applications dismissed; Respondent granted leave to file Statement of Response within 14 days.
Orders
- The Respondent is granted 14 days from the date of this ruling to file its Statement of Response, documents and witness statements if any.
- If none is filed within 14 days, the matter be mentioned before the Deputy Registrar who will allocate the Claimant a hearing date on formal proof.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Keana v Quavatel Limited (Cause E704 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1528 (KLR) (14 June 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELRC 1528 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause E704 of 2023
J Rika, J
June 14, 2024
Between
Edward Sagini Keana
Claimant
and
Quavatel Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. This ruling is in relation to two applications. The first is dated 27th September 2023, filed by the Claimant, asking the Court that the Claim proceeds to formal proof hearing, the Respondent having failed to file its Statement of Response, within the prescribed time.
2. The second, filed by the Respondent, is dated 5th February 2024, asking the Court to have the Claim dismissed, on the ground that the Respondent is not the immediate Employer of the Claimant.
3. The Court directed that the applications are dealt with on the strength of the Parties’ affidavits and submissions. Submissions were confirmed to have been filed and exchanged at the last mention, on 4th April 2024.
The Court Finds 4. Both applications are not necessary.
5. If the Respondent has failed to file a Statement of Response, the Claimant could have had the matter mentioned, and sought a hearing date, without the filing and prosecution of an application.
6. If the Claimant has sued the wrong Respondent, the Respondent should have filed a Statement of Response first, pointing out that it is the wrong Respondent, and then file an application to strike out the Claim. It is irregular to file an application, which is not grounded on any Statement of Response.
7. A cursory look at the documents filed by the Claimant, confirm that the Claimant was employed by a company with a similar name to the Respondent. The mutual separation agreement dated 20th July 2023 is between him and a company with a similar name to the Respondent. If the Respondent did not employ the Claimant, this can only be clarified through a Statement of Response, and evidence taken from the Parties upon trial of the facts.
8. The Court does not think that the applications are warranted.
It Is Ordereda.The Respondent is granted 14 days from the date of this ruling to file its Statement of Response, documents and witness statements if any.b.If none is filed within 14 days, the matter be mentioned before the Deputy Registrar who will allocate the Claimant a hearing date on formal proof.c.If the Respondent will have complied, the Deputy Registrar to allocate Parties hearing date.d.No order on the costs.
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 RIKAJUDGE