Aminga v Gain Ventures & 2 others (Cause E096 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1062 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to remove an outsourcing company from an unfair dismissal case, because who actually employed the worker can only be decided after a full hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether Bluetti Energy Kenya, an outsourcing firm, had an employer-employee relationship with the Claimant such that it was properly joined to the Cause
- 2.Whether the Claimant's suit against the 3rd Respondent should be struck out
Key legal issues
#Whether Bluetti was improperly joined as a party for want of an employer-employee relationship with the Claimant
The application to strike out Bluetti was declined; on the documents, Bluetti could not be removed at the interlocutory stage because the termination letter and contract chain implicated it
The Court referred only to the documentary record without resolving disputed facts. The Claimant was engaged through a chain of contracts with Bluetti, Market Dimension Ltd and Gain Ventures Ltd, and the termination letter was on Gain Ventures' letterhead yet referred to probation contracts with Bluetti Energy Kenya Ltd. Given the statutory definition of employer in section 2 of the Employment Act, 2007, Gain Ventures Ltd might be an agent or factor of Bluetti, and remedies were sought against all Respondents jointly. Whether all Respondents were ultimately liable was a matter for evidence, and Bluetti could be compensated by costs if it proved an improper party.
Whether outsourcing arrangements lacking statutory guidance warrant caution before striking out any party in the chain
Yes; the Court observed outsourcing is unregulated and may disadvantage employees, justifying cautious treatment of the joinder question
The Court noted that no statute or law currently guides outsourcing arrangements, making employees vulnerable as far as contractual rights are concerned. Where a Claimant is moved between legal entities under probationary contracts, addendum contracts and extensions, the interlocutory stage is too early to excise any entity in the chain; the true nature of the transactions may be unravelled by evidence at the hearing.
Legal principles established
#- Outsourcing of labour is not governed by any statute or law currently, and is prone to put employees at a disadvantage as far as contractual rights are concerned
- Under the definition of employer in section 2 of the Employment Act, 2007, an entity taking over or terminating another's employee contract may be presumed to be an agent or factor of the contracting employer at the interlocutory stage
Court orders
#- 1.The Summons dated 11 April 2024 is dismissed with costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (unfair/unlawful dismissal and breach of contract claim)
Relief refused
#Striking out the Claimant's suit as against the 3rd Respondent (Bluetti Energy Kenya)
At the interlocutory stage the Court could not determine liability; Bluetti could be compensated through costs if it later proves it was an improper party
Costs
Dismissed with costs in the cause (costs reserved to follow the outcome of the main suit)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The action herein implicates a case of outsourcing which is not guided by any statute or law currently, and thus prone to put employees at a disadvantage as contractual rights are concerned.
What the Court can presume pursuant to the definition of employer in section 2 of the Employment Act, 2007, is that Gain Ventures Ltd may fall in the category of agent or factor of Bluetti, for at this interlocutory stage, it is not clear why it was terminating a contract between the Claimant and Bluetti.
Considering the above and that Bluetti may be compensated through costs if it eventually turns out it was not a proper party to the proceedings, the Court declines to allow the Motion.
The Summons dated 11 April 2024 is dismissed with costs in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The Summons is described as filed on 12 April 2024 but the dismissal order refers to a Summons dated 11 April 2024; the date discrepancy (filing vs. dating of the application) is not explained
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Aminga v Gain Ventures & 2 others (Cause E096 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1062 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Employment Cause). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1062/eng@2025-04-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.