[2017] KEELRC 57 (KLR)
The Court found that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the 27 employees were his personal employees rather than employees of the Claimant. The question of the employment relationship had already been determined in previous proceedings, and the Applicant did not produce any...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELRC 57 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: London Distillers (K) Limited; Respondent: Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers; Applicant: Mohan Galot
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1639 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Joinder as Interested Party
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Wage Increment Disputes, Employment Relationship, Union Membership, Interested Party Application
- 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
London Distillers (K) Limited
Claimant
Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers
Respondent
Mohan Galot
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Joinder as Interested Party
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Applicant, Mohan Galot, should be joined as an interested party in the cause.
- 2 Whether the 27 employees in question are employees of the Claimant or personal employees of the Applicant.
- 3 Whether the Applicant has provided sufficient evidence to support his claim regarding the employment relationship.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the 27 employees were his personal employees rather than employees of the Claimant. The question of the employment relationship had already been determined in previous proceedings, and the Applicant did not produce any financial statements or other documentation to support his assertions. As such, there was no legal basis to reopen the matter or to join the Applicant as an interested party. The application was therefore dismissed as lacking merit, with costs awarded to the Respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The Applicant's application to be joined as an interested party is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO 1639 OF 2016
LONDON DISTILLERS (K) LIMITED.....................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
KENYA UNION OF COMMERCIAL FOOD
AND ALLIED WORKERS.................................................RESPONDENT
AND
MOHAN GALOT.............APPLICANT/INTENDED INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
1. Subsequent to a ruling delivered on 26th May 2017, by which the Court directed the Respondent to effect a 17% wage increment in favour of 27 of its employees, the Applicant filed an application seeking to be joined in the claim as an interested party.
2. The application which is brought by a Notice of Motion supported by the Applicant’s own affidavit sworn on 30th August 2017 is based on the following grounds:
a) That the claim concerns the Applicant’s employees;
b) That the Court would be better informed on the issues if the Applicant is joined;
c) That it is in the interest of justice that material facts be brought forth before the Court;
d) That the Respondent has illegally and unprocedurally recruited members outside its mandate;
e) That it is fair and justice that the Applicant be joined in this matter as an interested party;
f) That the Applicant’s joinder will avoid multiplicity of suits and considerably save judicial time and nobody will be prejudiced.
3. In his affidavit in support of the application, the Applicant states that he is the Founder and Chairman of the Claimant Company. He adds that the salaries of his personal employees are paid through the Claimant but debited to his personal account. He accuses the Respondent of irregularly recruiting and engaging with his personal employees, who are not employed by the Claimant.
4. The Respondent’s response is contained in a replying affidavit sworn by its General Secretary, Boniface M. Kavuvi on 17th October 2017. He states that the Applicant has no employment relationship with the 27 employees in issue.
5. Submitting on behalf of the Respondent before the Court, Mr. Nyumba (Union Representative) told the Court that there was no pending dispute upon which the Applicant could be joined. The 27 employees had already benefited from the 1st phase of the 17% wage increment and the Court had directed the Respondent to effect the 2nd phase.
6. The gist of the Applicant’s application is that he is aggrieved by the Ruling of the Court delivered on 26th May 2017, directing the Claimant to effect the 2nd instalment of the 17% wage increment in favour of the 27 employees.
The Applicant’s grievance stems from his assertion that the 27 are not employees of the Claimant but his personal employees, whose salaries though paid by the Claimant are debited to his personal account.
7. This Court has already determined the question as to whether the 27 are employees of the Claimant and is there is no basis in law for its reopening. In any event, the Applicant did not file any financial statements to prove that the salaries of the 27 employees are in fact debited to his personal account.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds the Applicant’s application to be without merit and proceeds to dismiss it with costs to the Respondent.
9. Orders accordingly.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 19THDAY OF DECEMBER 2017
LINNET NDOLO
JUDGE
Appearance:
Miss Sang the Applicant
Mr. Nyumba (Union Representative) for the Respondent