Mariana Onica & another v Sky Aero Limited & another [2015] KEELRC 1359 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that renaming a company with '(IOM)' does not shield its aircraft from being sold to pay a valid judgment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether Sky Aero Limited (IOM) is distinct from the respondent/judgment debtor Sky Aero Limited
No. On the documents on record, including the certificate of registration and the contracts of employment, the owner of the aircraft and the employer of the claimants is one and the same entity, Sky Aero Limited registered at 3-5 Victoria Road, Douglas, Isle of Man; the Objector is a camouflage of the respondent.
The claimants' statement of claim described the respondent as Sky Aero Limited incorporated in the Isle of Man with an office at JKIA Nairobi. The employment contracts were signed for Sky Aero Limited at the same Isle of Man address given as the Objector's registered office. The KCAA certificate of registration names SKY AERO LIMITED at that address as owner of the aircraft. Whether different directors existed for the Objector and the respondent was immaterial because the respondent named in the suit is Sky Aero Limited, not Sky Aero Limited (K) or (IOM).
Who owns aircraft 5Y-CDP Macdonnel Douglas Corp DC9-31 Serial No. 48145
The certificate of registration issued by the Kenya Civil Aviation Authority shows SKY AERO LIMITED as owner, at the Isle of Man address, leased to Aerospace Consortium - the same entity as the respondent employer.
The court resolved the ownership question by reference to the Objector's own affidavit and exhibit MM-2A, B, being Kenya Civil Aviation Authority Certificate no. 2524. That certificate gave the owner's address as 3-5 Victoria Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, the very name and registered office of the Objector, which the court held to be the respondent in the suit. The claimants' evidence of shared directors, addresses and insurance arrangements reinforced this.
Whether the property of a stranger to the suit can be attached in execution
The Objector argued that property of a stranger cannot be attached, but the court found the Objector was not in truth a stranger; it was the judgment debtor under another label, so the objection failed.
The Objector's application was founded on the premise that it was a non-party whose property had been wrongly attached under a mistaken belief that it belonged to the respondent. The court examined the corporate identity question and concluded that the supposed distinction between the Isle of Man and Kenyan companies was a device to circumvent the decree. The application was therefore dismissed as an abuse of process.
Legal principles established
#- A company on registration becomes a distinct legal person separate from its members and other similarly named entities.
- A party cannot use a variant of a judgment debtor's name (adding (K) or (IOM)) to defeat execution of a valid decree; the court will look at substance over such labels.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 16th February 2015 filed by the respondents as the supposed Objector is dismissed
- 2.Costs are awarded to the claimants
- 3.The interim orders granted by the court on 11th February 2015 shall remain in force pending hearing and determination of application dated and filed on 10th February 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction as the Employment and Labour Relations Court over an employment claim; jurisdiction previously upheld in a ruling on a preliminary objection, the claimants' place of work being in Kenya
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (6)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Chepng’otie v Kenya Kazi Security Services (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 36 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 2868 (KLR)[2023] KEELRC 2868 (KLR)10 Nov 2023applied
- Julius Michael Ooko v Tata Chemicals Magadi Limited [2019] KEELRC 2015 (KLR)[2019] KEELRC 2015 (KLR)22 Mar 2019
- Joseph Matiti Maema & 3 others v Kabiro Builders Limited [2016] KEELRC 1858 (KLR)[2016] KEELRC 1858 (KLR)31 May 2016
- Henry Ochido v NGO Co-ordination Board [2015] KEELRC 150 (KLR)[2015] KEELRC 150 (KLR)12 Nov 2015applied
- Pooroosotum Bheekhoo v Linksoft Group [2015] KEELRC 191 (KLR)[2015] KEELRC 191 (KLR)22 Oct 2015
- Nathan Ogada Atiagaga v David Engineering Limited [2015] KEELRC 75 (KLR)[2015] KEELRC 75 (KLR)21 Sept 2015applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mariana Onica & another v Sky Aero Limited & another [2015] KEELRC 1359 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause No 1519. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/1359/eng@2015-03-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.