Ian Baraka v Viya Health Enterprises Limited & 3 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to remove three companies from an employee's lawsuit, ruling that questions about who should be sued must wait until full trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 2nd Respondent's striking-out application was properly before the court
The application was fatally defective because affidavit evidence was filed in support of a non-disclosure application
Order 2 rule 15(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules restricts the court to scrutinising the impugned pleading alone; no affidavit evidence is permitted. The 2nd Respondent filed affidavit evidence, contravening the rule and rendering the application fatally defective.
Whether the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents were properly impleaded
The question of whether they are necessary parties can only be determined after evaluating trial evidence
The law entitles a litigant to implead anyone believed necessary, and to join multiple defendants where in doubt as to whom redress lies. Whether an impleaded party's presence is essential is a question of law and fact sometimes determinable only after evidence is evaluated at trial. The parties' positions conflict, so determination must await trial.
Whether the court lacks jurisdiction for want of an employment relationship with the 2nd Respondent
The jurisdictional objection was not upheld; the impleading question is deferred to trial
The 2nd Respondent argued no employment relationship existed, only a consulting agreement with the 1st Respondent. The Claimant contended the 2nd Respondent executed the employer's HR function and was involved in his resignation. Given the conflicting positions, the court held the matter required trial evaluation rather than summary determination.
Legal principles established
#- A party applying to strike out a pleading for non-disclosure of a cause of action must not file affidavit evidence in support; doing so renders the application fatally defective
- A litigant may implead any person believed necessary for effective adjudication, and where in doubt as to whom redress lies, may join two or more defendants
- Whether an impleaded party is essential is a question of law and fact sometimes determinable only after trial
Court orders
#- 1.The court declines to grant the applications dated 11th June 2025 and 18th September 2025
- 2.Costs of the two applications shall abide the outcome of the trial
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and ELRC Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ian Baraka v Viya Health Enterprises Limited & 3 others", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. E232 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2574/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.