REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI ELRC CAUSE NO E1119 OF 2025 CHEN RONGHU……....……………………………. …………….CLAIMANT VERSUS LI XIA…………………………………………………………… RESPONDENT RULING Background 1. The Claimant instituted this action against the Respondent alleging that the latter employed him as a Chef with effect from 23rd September 2023 but irregularly terminated the contract of service between the parties on 20 th May 2024. He avers that the Respondent did not grant him leave, off days or pay in lieu thereof. 2. The Claimant further accuses the Respondent of failure to renew his Visa. He also alleges that the Respondent used the police to deport him from Kenya with the intention of defrauding him of his benefits. 3. The Respondent has filed a preliminary objection to the suit. He contends that he was not the Claimant’s employer. He avers that he was only a manager of the establishment where the Claimant was working. ELRC CAUSE NO E1119 OF 2025 1
page 1 of 4
Analysis 4. It is true as the Respondent asserts that it would be improper to sue him in the capacity of manager of a disclosed employer. (Kilonzo v Avacare (K) Limited & 2 others; Pharmaceutical Society of Kenya & another (Interested Parties) [2023] KEELRC 1839 (KLR)). However, a perusal of the Memorandum of Claim does not suggest that he has been sued in the capacity of manager of a disclosed employer. 5. As a matter of fact, the Memorandum of Claim does not suggest that the Respondent was acting as a manager of a disclosed employer. In the premises, the Respondent cannot rely on the decision in the case of Kilonzo v Avacare (K) Limited & 2 others; Pharmaceutical Society of Kenya & another (Interested Parties) (supra) to contend that he has been wrongly sued. 6. The case of Kilonzo v Avacare (K) Limited & 2 others; Pharmaceutical Society of Kenya & another (Interested Parties) (supra) is clearly distinguishable from the instant case. In the aforesaid case, the employee sued both his employer and the directors of the employer. Hence the court’s finding that the directors, being agents of a disclosed principal, could not be properly sued in the cause. 7. Conversely in the instant case, the Claimant expressly alleges that the Respondent was his employer. He does not contend that the Respondent hired his services whilst acting ELRC CAUSE NO E1119 OF 2025 2
page 2 of 4
as a manager of a disclosed principal. As such, the two cases are founded on different sets of facts and cannot be said to be similar. Determination 8. In this case, the Claimant has clearly alleged that the Respondent was his employer. Whether this is true or not can only be determined on the basis of the evidence that will be tendered on the subject during the trial. 9. As such, the preliminary objection dated 17 th February 2026 is unmerited and is declined. 10. Costs of the objection will abide the outcome of the suit. Dated, signed and delivered on the 8th day of October, 2026 B. O. M. MANANI JUDGE In the presence of: …………….for the Claimant …………….for the Respondent ORDER In light of the directions issued on 12 th July 2022 by her Ladyship, the Chief Justice with respect to online court proceedings, this decision has been delivered to the parties online with their consent, the parties having ELRC CAUSE NO E1119 OF 2025 3
page 3 of 4
waived compliance with Rule 28 (3) of the ELRC Procedure Rules which requires that all judgments and rulings shall be dated, signed and delivered in the open court. B. O. M MANANI ELRC CAUSE NO E1119 OF 2025 4
page 4 of 4