Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause 1356 of 2011· [2013] KEELRC 454 (KLR)

LEODIP LEMUSE V DIRECTORS WADIA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & ANOTHER [2013] KEELRC 454 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
6 March 2013
LNLINNET NDOLO
894 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court struck out company directors from an employment claim, confirming directors can only be sued personally with court leave and proof of wrongdoing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by the Respondents as a night watchman on a verbal agreement from July 2008, sued for unpaid terminal benefits after his employment ended upon completion of a construction project on 1st February 2011. He claimed notice pay, service pay, compensation for off days, underpayment, overtime, uniform, unfair termination and house allowance, quantified in his Memorandum of Claim. The Respondents admitted employment, denied the claims, asserted the contract lapsed on completion of the assignment, and contended that only Kshs. 60,000 agreed in a settlement remained unpaid, which the Claimant allegedly refused to collect. The Respondents also objected to the joinder of the parties and threatened a preliminary objection. The Respondents made no appearance at the hearing, which proceeded ex parte on 21st January 2013. Before determining the claim, the court treated the joinder issue as a preliminary objection raising a pure point of law under Mukisa Biscuits v West End Distributors. Noting that the 1st Respondent was described merely as 'the Directors of Wadia Construction Company' with no names assigned, and that no case for lifting the corporate veil had been advanced, the court held the directors were wrongly enjoined. It struck out the 1st Respondent and granted the Claimant leave to amend his pleadings. The judgment as provided does not record a determination of the substantive claim or any costs order.

Key legal issues

#
01

Joinder of a company's directors as respondents in an employment claim

Holding

The 1st Respondent, described only as 'the Directors of Wadia Construction Company' with no names assigned, was wrongly enjoined and was struck out, with leave to the Claimant to amend

Reasoning

The court treated the joinder objection as a preliminary objection raising a pure point of law under Mukisa Biscuits. Rule 4 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules requires a description of the respondent, but no names were given for the directors. Even if named, directors may only be joined with leave where piercing the corporate veil is justified, and no such argument was made.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Directors of a company may only be joined in proceedings with leave of the court where it is demonstrated that the corporate veil is being used to defeat the ends of justice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 1st Respondent (The Directors Wadia Construction Company) is struck out from the proceedings
  2. 2.Leave granted to the Claimant to amend his pleadings accordingly

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Industrial Court (Procedure) RulesRule 4

Cases cited (1)

  • Mukisa Biscuits Vs. West End Distributors Limited
    1969 EALR
Jurisdiction invoked
Reference of a dispute to the Industrial Court under Rule 4 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules; employment dispute referred under written law

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "LEODIP LEMUSE V DIRECTORS WADIA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & ANOTHER [2013] KEELRC 454 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Cause 1356 of 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/454/eng@2013-03-06

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.