Kenneth L. Indusa v Lake Victoria North Water Services Board [2018] KEELRC 67 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that Lake Victoria North Water Services Board was properly sued and must defend the dismissal claim rather than try to strike it out.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Respondent was properly sued, i.e. whether there was misjoinder or non-joinder of parties
- 2.Whether the Claimant's suit should be struck out as disclosed by the application dated 4th December, 2017
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit disclosed a cause of action against the Respondent warranting striking out
The suit disclosed a clear cause of action in contract of employment and the Respondent was properly sued; the striking-out application was premature on the merits of constructive dismissal
The Claimant pleaded employment on successive fixed-term contracts, an acting appointment while the contract persisted, an alleged ultra vires deployment letter and intolerable working conditions including non-payment of salary. The court held submissions on the substance of constructive dismissal were premature at the interlocutory stage and that there was no misjoinder or non-joinder.
Joinder of parties
No misjoinder or non-joinder existed; the Respondent was properly sued
The court examined the pleaded contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent and concluded the Respondent, as the contracting employer, was the proper party to the suit. The deployment letter authored by other entities did not displace the contractual nexus with the Respondent.
Legal principles established
#- Where a claimant discloses a clear cause of action against a properly sued respondent, a suit should not be struck out; the respondent ought to file a defence rather than employ dilatory tactics
Court orders
#- 1.The application to strike out the suit dated 4th December, 2017 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Claimant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (specific statutory provision not stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Respondent's application to strike out the Claimant's suit
The court found the Respondent was properly sued and there was no misjoinder or non-joinder; the Claimant disclosed a clear cause of action against the Respondent
Costs
The application to strike out is dismissed with costs (costs awarded to the Claimant)
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 Respondent in the court’s considered view has been properly sued. There is no case of mis joinder or non joinder.
This is a clear cause of action by the Claimant against the Respondent. The Respondent needs to file a statement of defence and stop engaging in dilatory tactics so that the court can determine the real issues.
The application to strike out the suit dated 4th December, 2017 is dismissed with costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenneth L. Indusa v Lake Victoria North Water Services Board [2018] KEELRC 67 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/67/eng@2018-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.