Akolo v Board of Directors, Amatsi Water Services Company Limited & 2 others; Attorney General (Interested Party) (Judicial Review Application E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 356 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A dismissed manager lost his case because he sued the wrong people and used the wrong court process instead of suing his employer directly.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the judicial review proceedings were properly before the court
The proceedings were incurably defective on three fronts: misjoinder of the board of directors as a non-legal entity, no cause of action against the other respondents and interested party, and a private employment dispute brought under public-law remedies
The court held that Amatsi Water Services Ltd is a separate legal personality (Salmon v Salmon) and only the company could sue or be sued over the employment relationship. Judicial review checks excesses of public officers in public duties; a private employment dispute lies in private law for remedies in personam. The board is not a legal entity capable of being sued.
Whether the dismissal of the applicant was unfair and unlawful
Even assuming the employer had been joined, the dismissal was fair in substance and procedure; the applicant was given a show-cause letter, hearing, appeal and review
The applicant received and responded to a show-cause letter, attended a disciplinary hearing and presented his defence, never requested witnesses for cross-examination, failed to attend his appeal hearing which was nonetheless determined on his written submissions, and was informed of outcomes at every stage. Natural justice was complied with and his rights were not infringed.
Whether the applicant was entitled to the reliefs sought
No relief could be granted because the employer was not a party and the corporate veil was never lifted
Orders of certiorari and prohibition were intended to reinstate the applicant, but they could only issue against the company, which was never joined. The board and individual officers have no capacity to be sued for the company, and no explanation was given for joining the Attorney General in a purely private dispute.
Legal principles established
#- A limited liability company is a legal person that must sue and be sued in its own name; proceedings against its board or officers on its behalf are fatally defective
- Judicial review is available only to check abuses by public officers and institutions performing public duties, not to resolve private employment disputes
- A party who fails to request the calling of witnesses for cross-examination cannot later complain of denial of the opportunity
Court orders
#- 1.The application and the proceedings herein are dismissed in their entirety
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 & 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules (judicial review proceedings)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Akolo v Board of Directors, Amatsi Water Services Company Limited & 2 others; Attorney General (Interested Party) (Judicial Review Application E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 356 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/356/eng@2025-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.