Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherNot stated in judgment (Cause filed 23 May 2017)· [2017] KEELRC 1989 (KLR)

Evans Ocharo v Trustees Bungoma Members Club [2017] KEELRC 1989 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
3 November 2017
833 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenyan employees can sue clubs and unincorporated associations that hired them, as the Employment and Labour Relations Court confirmed in this Bungoma case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, Evans Ocharo, sued Trustees, Bungoma Members Club on 23 May 2017 claiming salary in lieu of notice, salary arrears, leave allowance, public holidays and off-days dues, overtime allowance and compensation for unfair termination. The Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection contending that the suit was fatally defective, frivolous and an abuse of court process because it lacked locus standi to sue or be sued in its own name. In a ruling delivered at Eldoret on 3 November 2017, Radido J overruled the objection on two grounds. Statutorily, the Employment Act, 2007 departed from the common law and company law approach to who may sue and be sued: sections 9 and 10(2)(b) oblige the employer to issue a written contract naming the employer, section 2 defines employer broadly to include any person, firm, corporation or company and their agents, foremen, managers or factors, and section 87 allows the employee to commence action against the employer. The Court held these provisions were aimed at the mischief of employers concealing their legal identities to evade liability. Constitutionally, Articles 22, 258 and 260 expand locus standi so that even unincorporated or unregistered bodies may sue or be sued, and a statute should not disallow what the Constitution allows. Even if the Court were wrong, a simple amendment would cure the defect. The Court declined to strike out or dismiss the Cause and ordered costs in the Cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an unincorporated association can be sued as an employer in an employment Cause

Holding

Yes; the Employment Act, 2007 departed from the common law and company law approach and permits the employee to sue the entity described as employer in the contract

Reasoning

Sections 9 and 10(2)(b) of the Employment Act oblige an employer to issue a written contract naming the employer, and section 2 defines employer broadly to include any person, firm or company or its agent, foreman, manager or factor. The Court held this was designed to cure the mischief of employers hiding their legal identities to evade liability, so the entity that issued the appointment letter could be sued.

p. 2
02

Whether the constitutional framework on standing affects who may be sued

Holding

Articles 22, 258 and 260 expand competency/locus standi so that even unincorporated bodies may sue or be sued, and a statute should not disallow what the Constitution allows

Reasoning

Article 260 defines person to include a company, association or body of persons whether incorporated or unincorporated, and Articles 22 and 258 confer standing to institute constitutional proceedings. The Court reasoned it would be incoherent for such an entity to be sued for constitutional violations but not for contractual or statutory causes of action.

p. 2
03

Whether any defect in naming the Respondent was fatal

Holding

No; even if the Court were wrong, an amendment would cure the defect

Reasoning

The Court held that even on the Respondent's own argument, any misjoinder or misdescription would not render the suit fatally defective or an abuse of process, since a simple amendment would suffice to bring the correct party before the Court. It accordingly took a contrary position to the many authorities cited by both parties.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Under the Employment Act, 2007 an entity that has entered into a contract of service, including an unincorporated association or its agent, foreman, manager or factor, can be sued by an employee as the employer.
  • Articles 22, 258 and 260 of the Constitution expand locus standi so that even unincorporated or unregistered bodies may institute or face legal proceedings.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection is dismissed; the Court declines the invitation to strike out or dismiss the Cause
  2. 2.Costs in the Cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 2 (definition of employer)
  • Employment Actsection 9
  • Employment Actsection 10(2)(b)
  • Employment Actsection 87
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 22
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 258
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 260
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment Act, 2007 (ss. 2, 9, 10(2)(b), 87) and Articles 22, 258 and 260 of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Evans Ocharo v Trustees Bungoma Members Club [2017] KEELRC 1989 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in judgment (Cause filed 23 May 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2017/1989/eng@2017-11-03

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