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 excerpt· [2024] KEELRC 1458 (KLR)

Kaumbi v Tegla Loroupe Peace Fondation & another (Cause E246 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 1458 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
14 June 2024
498 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that an organisation that hired and fired an employee cannot escape being sued by claiming it doesn't legally exist.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, formerly Chief Executive Officer of the 1st Respondent, an organisation associated with a world-renowned former marathoner (the 2nd Respondent), sued for terminal benefits, a compensatory award and damages following her allegedly unfair and unlawful dismissal on 30th November 2020. The Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 24th January 2024, contending that the Claim was incompetent because no proper 1st Respondent had been sued or named, that the 1st Respondent was non-existent in law, and that the 2nd Respondent was wrongfully joined. The parties agreed the objection be determined on the strength of the record, with submissions exchanged by 4th April 2024. Rika J found that the pleadings and documents did not support the objection: the Respondents admitted the description of the parties and conceded the Claimant's employment by the 1st Respondent; the employment contract of 2nd January 2009, payroll, internal communications, the suspension of 14th August 2020, the show-cause letter and the termination letter of 3rd December 2020 all issued in the 1st Respondent's name following a Board of Trustees meeting. The court reasoned that entities with capacity to employ and terminate could not later be deprived of capacity to be sued, and found prima facie evidence that the Respondents were 'Employers' under Section 2 of the Employment Act and were properly sued. The preliminary objection was declined with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 1st Respondent exists in law so as to be properly sued

Holding

The PO fails; the record shows the 1st Respondent employed, suspended and terminated the Claimant, satisfying the definition of 'Employer' under Section 2 of the Employment Act.

Reasoning

The employment contract was signed between the 1st Respondent and the Claimant; payroll, internal communications, the suspension letter, show-cause letter and termination letter all issued in the 1st Respondent's name following a meeting of its Board of Trustees. The Respondents' own pleadings admitted employing the Claimant, contradicting the assertion that the 1st Respondent is non-existent.

p. 2
02

Whether the 2nd Respondent, the 1st Respondent's president, is improperly joined

Holding

The joinder is not improper; the 2nd Respondent is described in the pleadings as the 1st Respondent's president and the pleadings do not support the objection.

Reasoning

The Respondents admitted the description of parties in the Statement of Claim and pleaded that the 2nd Respondent is the 1st Respondent's president. The court reasoned that an entity that had capacity to employ and terminate could not later be deprived of capacity to be sued, so the objection on misjoinder had no merit.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party with capacity to employ and terminate employment cannot be deprived of the capacity to be sued; an entity that employs, pays and terminates within the statutory definition of 'Employer' is properly sued.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The PO is declined.
  2. 2.Costs in the cause.
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (Section 2 definition of 'Employer')

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kaumbi v Tegla Loroupe Peace Fondation & another (Cause E246 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 1458 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1458/eng@2024-06-14

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