[2024] KEELRC 2098 (KLR)
The court found that, despite the Interested Party's assertion of being a separate legal entity, the evidence demonstrated that the Respondent and the Interested Party operated as the same business and employer. The Claimant's employment relationship was with the business conducted under both names, as shown by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELRC 2098 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Muendo Kiilu; Respondent: Survo General Works; Interested Party: Survo General Works Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 692 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Judgment
- Outcome
- application declined
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Employer Liability, Corporate Veil, Employment Relationship, Setting Aside Judgment
- 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
Peter Muendo Kiilu
Applicant
Survo General Works
Respondent
Survo General Works Limited
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Interested Party is a separate legal entity from the Respondent for purposes of employer liability.
- 2 Whether the judgment delivered in favour of the Claimant should be set aside on the basis of alleged misjoinder or misdescription of parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, despite the Interested Party's assertion of being a separate legal entity, the evidence demonstrated that the Respondent and the Interested Party operated as the same business and employer. The Claimant's employment relationship was with the business conducted under both names, as shown by correspondence, shared addresses, and documents issued by the Interested Party. The legal structure or distinction between the two entities was immaterial to the question of employer liability under section 2 of the Employment Act. Therefore, the application to set aside the judgment was declined, as the Interested Party and the Respondent were, for all practical purposes, the same...
Court Disposition
application declined
Orders
- The application filed by the Interested Party dated 7th February 2024 is declined.
- Costs to the Claimant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Kiilu v Survo General Works; Survo General Works Limited (Interested Party) (Cause 692 of 2013) [2024] KEELRC 2098 (KLR) (2 August 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELRC 2098 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause 692 of 2013
J Rika, J
August 2, 2024
Between
Peter Muendo Kiilu
Claimant
and
Survo General Works
Respondent
and
Survo General Works Limited
Interested Party
Ruling
1. The Interested Party filed an application dated 7th February 2024, asking the Court for an order that, Judgment delivered by the Court in favour of the Claimant, is set aside
2. The Interested Party submits, that it is not the same entity as the Respondent.
3. The court has carefully examined affidavits filed by the Parties in relation to the Application.
4. It has scrupulously examined documents filed by the Parties.
5. It is clear that the Claimant’s Advocates exchanged correspondence with the Interested Party on the dispute, prior to filing of the Claim. The Applicant’s deponent and director Mercy Muthoni Mbuba authored the correspondence. The postal address and letterheads of the Respondent and the Interested Party are the same. The Respondent admitted the description of the Parties in responding to the Claim. Documents relied upon by the Respondent in responding to the Claim, such as Customer Statement [ SGW 4], Delivery Note [SGW 5] and the Final Dues for the Claimant [SWG 8], were all issued by, and under the letterhead of, the Interested Party.
6. The argument by the Interested Party that it is a separate legal entity from the Respondent, is neither here nor there. There is evidence that the Respondent and the Interested Party are the same business, which employed the Claimant. They need not be the same legal entity to assume the liability of an Employer, within the meaning of the term ‘Employer,’ under section 2 of the Employment Act. The Respondent and the Interested Party were part of the same business, and the legal structure they assumed, in conducting their business, has no bearing on their liability, as the Claimant’s Employer. It suffices that they were the same business, the same Employer, whether transacting as Survo General Works or Survo General Works Limited.It is ordered : -a.The Application filed by the Interested Party dated 7th February 2024 is declined.b.Costs to the Claimant.
DATED, SIGNED AND RELEASED TO THE PARTIES ELECTRONICALLY AT NAIROBI, UNDER PRACTICE DIRECTION 6[2] OF THE ELECTRONIC CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE DIRECTIONS 2020, THIS 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024. JAMES RIKAJUDGE