[2018] KEELRC 95 (KLR)
The court found that the 1st respondent, as a body corporate, has a distinct legal personality and is solely liable for employment matters involving the claimant. The 2nd respondent, being an employee and agent of the 1st respondent, acted within the scope of his authority and did not incur personal liability. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 95 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Wilter Nyanchama Stephen; Respondent: Family Town (2002) Limited; Respondent: Lorenzo Ventura
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 603 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Application for Removal of Party
- Outcome
- Application allowed; 2nd respondent removed from suit.
- Judges
- NJ Abuodha
- Legal Topics
- Corporate Personality, Misjoinder of Parties, Agency in Employment
- 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
Wilter Nyanchama Stephen
Applicant
Family Town (2002) Limited
Respondent
Lorenzo Ventura
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Removal of Party
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 2nd respondent, as an employee and agent of the 1st respondent, is a proper party to the suit.
- 2 Whether the 1st respondent, as a body corporate, is solely liable for employment matters involving the claimant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 1st respondent, as a body corporate, has a distinct legal personality and is solely liable for employment matters involving the claimant. The 2nd respondent, being an employee and agent of the 1st respondent, acted within the scope of his authority and did not incur personal liability. The claimant conceded that the 2nd respondent was an employee of the 1st respondent and that any actions taken by the 2nd respondent were on behalf of the 1st respondent. Therefore, the inclusion of the 2nd respondent as a party to the suit was a misjoinder, and he was improperly joined to the proceedings.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; 2nd respondent removed from suit.
Orders
- The 2nd respondent, Lorenzo Ventura, is removed from the suit.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF
KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO 603 OF 2014
WILTER NYANCHAMA STEPHEN..........................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
FAMILY TOWN (2002) LIMITED.................................1ST RESPONDENT
LORENZO VENTURA...................................................2ND RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
1. By a motion dated 23rd Febuary, 2014 the 2nd respondent sought to be removed from the present proceedings. The application was premised on the grounds that for the purposes of employment contract there was no nexus between the claimant and the 2nd respondent hence the 2nd respondent is not suited in the matter.
2. Further that the 1st respondent was a limited liability company with its own separate personality and the 2nd respondent signed the letter of employment and termination dated 14th October, 2009 and 4th March, 2014 as the 1st respondents authorized agent hence could not incur perianal liability. Paragraph 3 of the memorandum of claim states that the 2nd respodnet is a male adult working for the 1st respondent. Paragraph 5 further states that the 1st respondent through 2nd respondent unlawfully terminated the contract of the claimant.
3. From the foregoing alone the 2nd respondent is clearly an employee of the 1st respondent and that if at all he terminated the claimant’s services, he did so as an agent of the 1st respo which the claimant himself has conceded.
4. The 1st respondent is a body corporate with its own distinct personality capable of suing and being sued. It is therefore a misjoinder to include the 2nd respondent who the claimant concedes was an employee of the 1st respondent and through whom the 1st respondent terminated his services.
5. The application is therefore found merited and is hereby allowed with the consequence that the 2nd respodnent is removed from the suit.
6. It is so ordered.
Dated at Nairobi this 7th day of December, 2018
Abuodha Jorum Nelson
Judge
Delivered this 7th day of December, 2018
Abuodha Jorum Nelson
Judge
In the presence of:-
..............................................................for the Claimant and
..............................................................for the Respondent.