Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated on the face of the judgment (Claim seeking execution of decree in employment claim)· [2021] KEELRC 1278 (KLR)

Edward Odoyo Owiti v Salama Hotel Limited [2021] KEELRC 1278 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 July 2021
2,605 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court allowed a fired worker to enforce his judgment against a hotel's related companies and the family behind them.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, who obtained judgment against the Respondent, Salama Hotel Limited, on 10 February 2017 for unlawful dismissal, with a decree extracted on 3 August 2018, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 8 November 2019 seeking orders directing execution of the judgment and decree jointly and severally against several related entities and individuals: Salama Hotel Limited, Hotel Salama Limited, Salama Hotel, New Hotel Salama Annex, Ezekiel Karanja Ndune, Alfred Njau Karanja and Susan Ann Karanja. He argued that these entities and persons, controlled by the same family, were his employers from 1998 until his termination in May 2013, and that he was never issued with a contract as required by Section 10 of the Employment Act, leaving him unable to identify which of the confusingly similar entities employed him. The Respondent opposed the application, contending it was fatally defective, that there was no nexus between it and the other entities or persons, that lifting the corporate veil was impermissible, and that two proposed execution targets were deceased. The court, applying the Post Bank Credit v Nyamangu catalogue of veil-piercing circumstances, found from the CR12 search and Ezekiel Karanja Ndune's own affidavit that a nexus existed between Salama Hotel Limited and New Hotel Salama Annex, that both were family-owned businesses founded on personal relationships, and that the multiplicity of deceptively similar names together with the failure to issue a letter of appointment amounted to abuse of the law. The unsupported assertion of death was rejected. The court allowed execution against all named entities and individuals jointly and severally, with the costs of the application to be included in the decretal sum.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether execution of the decree may issue against entities and individuals other than the named Respondent (lifting the corporate veil)

Holding

Yes - the veil was lifted and execution allowed against the related entities and individuals jointly and severally

Reasoning

The court found a nexus between Salama Hotel Limited and New Hotel Salama Annex from the CR12 search and Ezekiel Karanja Ndune's own affidavit in which he described himself as Managing Partner of New Hotel Salama Annex sued as Salama Hotel Limited. Both entities are family-owned businesses founded on personal relationships, and the multiplicity of deceptively similar names, combined with the employer's failure to issue a letter of appointment, amounted to abuse of the law by preventing the employee from knowing who his employer was.

p. 4
02

Whether the Respondent's claim that two of the proposed execution targets are deceased could defeat the application

Holding

No - the assertion was unsupported by any evidence

Reasoning

The death of Ezekiel Karanja and Alfred Njau Karanja was raised only in submissions; the Respondent filed grounds of opposition which did not mention the deaths and adduced no proof. The court noted counsel did not state who engaged him to represent deceased persons, and held that submissions cannot replace evidence.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A corporate veil may be lifted where the company is founded on personal relationships between members or where the law has been abused, including where confusingly similar entities deprive an employee of knowing who his employer was
  • Submissions cannot take the place of evidence; facts must be supported by evidence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant be and is hereby allowed to execute the decree against Salama Hotel Limited, Hotel Salama Limited, Salama Hotel, New Hotel Salama Annex, Ezekiel Karanja Ndune, Alfred Njau Karanja and Susan Ann Karanja jointly and severally
  2. 2.The costs of the application to be included in the decretal sum

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 10
  • Companies ActSections 20(4) and 66
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)Section 1B
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 159(2)(d) and 48

Cases cited (6)

  • Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd
  • Mradula Suresh Kantaria v Suresh Nanalal Kantaria
    [2007] eKLR
  • Jackson Mugolio Musunji & 3 Others v Dambusters East Africa Limited
    [2019] eKLR
  • Kenya Scientific Research International Technical and allied institutions Workers Union v Flame Tree Brands Limited and 2 Others
    (2013) eKLR
  • Post Bank Credit Limited (in liquidation) v Nyamangu Holding Limited
    (2015) eKLR
  • Provisional Construction Company Limited v Attorney General
    Civil Case No. 165 of 1991
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over the employment dispute and execution of its own decree; Article 159(2)(d) and Article 48 of the Constitution invoked in the delivery order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Edward Odoyo Owiti v Salama Hotel Limited [2021] KEELRC 1278 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated on the face of the judgment (Claim seeking execution of decree in employment claim). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1278/eng@2021-07-09

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