Wago Roba Molu v Personal Systems Computer Limited [2021] KEELRC 302 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court dismissed a security guard's unfair termination claim because he sued the company, but the evidence showed a director—not the company—was his real employer.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an employment relationship existed between the claimant and the respondent
No. The claimant failed to prove on a balance of probability that the respondent was his employer; his evidence showed Mr Mahmood personally engaged, paid and terminated him.
The claimant admitted he was employed by, paid by, and stationed at the residence of Mr Mahmood, a director, and never rendered services at the respondent's premises in Regal Plaza. The respondent produced a certificate of incorporation dated 18 June 2007 showing it could not have employed him in 2000, and had never employed a security guard. The claimant's onus on a balance of probability was not discharged.
Whether the respondent is liable for the acts of its director Mr Mahmood
No. Applying Salomon v Salomon, the respondent is a separate juristic person and not liable for the acts or omissions of its director absent factors warranting lifting of the veil.
The court applied the corporate personality principle as reiterated by the Court of Appeal in Victor Mabachi & Anor v Nurturn Bates Ltd, adopting it wholly. No lifting-the-veil factors were established, so the director's personal employment of the claimant could not be attributed to the company.
Legal principles established
#- A company is a separate legal entity distinct from its shareholders, directors and agents unless there are factors warranting lifting of the veil.
- A claimant bears the onus of proving employment on a balance of probability, and an identity card alone is not conclusive proof of an employment relationship.
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed in its entirety with no orders as to costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Civil Procedure Act (court of first instance over the unfair termination claim)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wago Roba Molu v Personal Systems Computer Limited [2021] KEELRC 302 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause No 1964 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/302/eng@2021-11-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.