Joseph Gidraf Wanjala v Diane Hamrick & another [2015] KEELRC 395 (KLR)
The bottom line
#In an employment dispute, the registered manager who signed your employment contract is the employer the court recognises, regardless of ownership battles behind the scenes.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Determination of the employer for purposes of the Employment Act, 2007 where ownership of the institution is disputed
The 1st Respondent, being registered with the Ministry of Education as Manager of the 2nd Respondent and having signed the Claimant's appointment letter as Chairperson, is an employer competent to be sued for unfair termination and the proper party to instruct an advocate for the 2nd Respondent.
Section 2 of the Employment Act defines an employer as any person or body that has entered into a contract of service, including an agent, foreman, manager or factor. Records showed the 1st Respondent remained the registered manager of the 2nd Respondent, and she signed the Claimant's appointment letter. The dispute before the Court was about the employment relationship, not ownership of the school, which was being litigated elsewhere; the Court declined to delve into that collateral dispute.
Which firm of advocates is properly on record for the 2nd Respondent
The firm of Kiarie, Kabita, Kihunyu & Associates, instructed through the 1st Respondent as registered manager, is properly on record pursuant to the Notice of Change of Advocates filed on 26 January 2015.
Although Waiganjo & Co. Advocates was instructed by the United Methodist Church claiming ownership of the 2nd Respondent, the present dispute concerned the employer-employee relationship, not ownership. Since the 1st Respondent was the registered manager and proper party to give instructions until her registration was changed, the firm she instructed properly came on record. The Court declined to consider the Church's ownership claim or the 1st Respondent's immigration status.
Legal principles established
#- For purposes of employment and labour disputes, the Court is concerned with who the employer is, and the person registered as manager under whose signature the contract of service was made is an employer competent to be sued and to instruct an advocate for the entity
Court orders
#- 1.Declared that for purposes of the present employment dispute, the firm of Kiarie, Kabita, Kihunyu & Associates is properly on record for the 2nd Respondent as expressed in the Notice of Change of Advocates
- 2.The directive that the main dispute be fixed for hearing on a priority basis should be implemented and the parties should agree a convenient date to have the Cause heard
- 3.Each party to bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment and labour disputes (Employment Act, 2007)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joseph Gidraf Wanjala v Diane Hamrick & another [2015] KEELRC 395 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause relating to unfair termination of employment commenced 24 July 2014 (Memorandum of Claim). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/395/eng@2015-10-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.