[2019] KEELRC 1111 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 1111 (KLR)

The court found that there was no employment relationship established between the claimant and the respondent. The respondent was incorporated in 2011 and was not a successor to Kisii Nissan Services, the entity under which the claimant alleged initial employment. The claimant failed to provide evidence of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 1111 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Zipporah Kemunto Onsombi; Respondent: Kisii Prestige Shuttle Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 131 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Existence of Employment Relationship, Corporate Successor Liability, Unlawful Termination, Jurisdiction of Employment Court
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Existence of Employment Relationship Corporate Successor Liability Unlawful Termination Jurisdiction of Employment Court

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zipporah Kemunto Onsombi

Claimant

Kisii Prestige Shuttle Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether there was an employment relationship between the claimant and the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether there was unlawful termination of employment by the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the remedies sought by the claimant are due.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no employment relationship established between the claimant and the respondent. The respondent was incorporated in 2011 and was not a successor to Kisii Nissan Services, the entity under which the claimant alleged initial employment. The claimant failed to provide evidence of employment with the respondent or to join Kisii Nissan Services as a party to the suit. As such, the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the employment claims against the respondent, and the claim failed for want of an employment relationship between the parties.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • Suit is hereby dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.