Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment extract· [2020] KEELRC 1484 (KLR)

Nicholas Kiprotich Ronoh v Taita Taveta University & another [2020] KEELRC 1484 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
5 March 2020
LNLINNET NDOLO
887 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 Employment Court ruled that officials personally involved in disputed employment decisions can be sued alongside the employer, even without a direct contract with the employee.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By Notice of Motion dated 25th October 2019, the 2nd Respondent, Professor Jonah Arap Too, Deputy Vice Chancellor-Administration, Finance and Planning of the 1st Respondent, sought to have the suit struck out against him on the grounds that the Claimant's employment contract was with the 1st Respondent alone, that there was no contractual relationship between the Claimant and the 2nd Respondent, and that no specific prayer was made against him. The Claimant conceded the contract was with the 1st Respondent but contended that the termination arose from transactions in which the 2nd Respondent was involved, and that specific questions of fact and constitutional provisions (Articles 10, 41 and 50) grounded his joinder. The Court framed a single issue: whether the 2nd Respondent is a necessary party. Relying on the principle that a person may be joined even absent a cause of action against him if his presence enables the court to completely adjudicate on all questions, and on its own decision in Engineer Mwalimu Kithome Musau v Kenya Water Institute, the Court held that while suing public officers in their official capacity is discouraged, that rule assumes lawful and good-faith conduct. Given serious allegations bordering on unfair labour practices made against the 2nd Respondent in the amended Memorandum of Claim, judicial examination of those allegations was held critical to the case. The Court declared the 2nd Respondent a necessary party and dismissed the application with costs to the Claimant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 2nd Respondent, a public officer sued in connection with an employment dispute with his employer institution, is a necessary party

Holding

He is a necessary party because the Claimant's allegations of unfair labour practices against him require judicial examination for the complete determination of the case

Reasoning

The Court acknowledged that suing public officers in their official capacity is discouraged, but noted that this applies only where officers act lawfully and in good faith. Since the amended Memorandum of Claim makes serious allegations bordering on unfair labour practices against the 2nd Respondent, and since judicial examination of those allegations is critical to determining the Claimant's case, the 2nd Respondent's presence is necessary to enable the Court to adjudicate completely on all questions in the suit.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Suing public officers acting in their official capacity is discouraged, but where they act outside the law or not in good faith they may personally be called to account

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 2nd Respondent's application dated 25th October 2019 is dismissed with costs to the Claimant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 10
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 41
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 50
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 rules 1 and 2

Cases cited (3)

  • Zephir Holdings Ltd v Mimosa Plantations Ltd, Jeremiah Matagaro & Ezekiel Misango Mutisya
    [2014] eKLR
  • Andy Forwarders Service Limited & another v Price Waterhouse Coopers Limited & another
    [2012] eKLR
  • Engineer Mwalimu Kithome Musau v Kenya Water Institute & another
    [2018] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction (Articles 10, 41 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya invoked by the Claimant)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nicholas Kiprotich Ronoh v Taita Taveta University & another [2020] KEELRC 1484 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1484/eng@2020-03-05

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