Odhiambo v Kisang & 3 others (Cause E089 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1031 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court kept three World Vision managers in an employee's defamation suit, ruling that anyone a claim is pleaded against stays in the case.
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 1st to 3rd Respondents should be struck out from the Cause on the ground that they acted as agents of the 4th Respondent and no relief was sought against them
- 2.Whether the Claimant pleaded a cause of action against the 1st to 3rd Respondents, including defamation
Key legal issues
#Whether a cause of action was pleaded against the 1st to 3rd Respondents
The Court held that the Claimant pleaded defamation against the Respondents, and the Respondents themselves acknowledged the defamation issue in their Proposed Issues, so the application to strike out failed
The Court examined the Statement of Claim and found causes of action, including defamation, expressly pleaded against the 1st to 3rd Respondents based on a letter dated 29 August 2023. The Respondents' own Proposed Issues included the question of defamation, confirming the issue was live. Whether the pleading met the substantive standard for defamation was a matter for trial, not a striking-out application.
Whether the agency argument justified striking out the 1st to 3rd Respondents
The agency argument did not avail the applicants because, on the pleaded defamation cause, the 1st to 3rd Respondents were necessary and proper parties regardless of whether relief was sought against them
Although the applications were grounded on the assertion that the 1st to 3rd Respondents were mere agents of World Vision Kenya against whom no relief was sought, the existence of a pleaded defamation claim against them personally meant they were necessary and proper parties whose presence was required for the just determination of the Cause.
Legal principles established
#- A party against whom a cause of action is pleaded is a necessary and proper party whether or not relief is specifically sought against them; whether the pleading has substance is not determined at the striking-out stage
Court orders
#- 1.The 3 Summons seeking the striking out of the names of the 1st to 3rd Respondents are 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 over wrongful termination of employment, breach of contract and defamation pleaded in the Statement of Claim (statutory basis not expressly cited in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Striking out of the 1st to 3rd Respondents from the Cause
The Claimant pleaded a cause of action for defamation against the Respondents, making the 1st to 3rd Respondents necessary and proper parties
Costs
Costs in the cause
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.
It is incontestable that the Claimant has pleaded a cause of action for defamation against the Respondents.
Whether the pleading has substance or meets the standard for pleading defamation is not for the Court to address at this early stage of the proceedings.
the 1st to 3rd Respondents are consequently necessary and proper parties to the Cause on defamation whether or not relief is sought against any of them.
In light of the above, the 3 Summons seeking the striking out of the names of the 1st to 3rd Respondents are dismissed with costs in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#Case number not stated in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Odhiambo v Kisang & 3 others (Cause E089 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1031 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1031/eng@2024-05-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.