SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Wago Roba Molu v Personal Systems Computer Limited [2017] KEELRC 1486 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 1486 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1486
Citation
[2017] KEELRC 1486 (KLR)
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeLabour DisputePostureRespondent's Application to Strike Out Claimant's ClaimCoramLINNET NDOLO
The Respondent's application to strike out the Claimant's claim is declined with costs.

Facts

The Claimant, Wago Roba Molu, claimed to have been employed as a guard by the Respondent, Personal Systems Computer Limited, in 2000. The Respondent denied this and claimed to have been incorporated in 2007, making it impossible for them to have employed the Claimant in 2000.

Issues

  • Whether the Respondent is a proper party in the suit
  • Whether the suit discloses a reasonable cause of action
  • Whether the Respondent has a contractual obligation to the Claimant
  • Whether the suit is scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious
  • Whether the suit is an abuse of the court process
  • Whether it would be fair and just to strike out the suit with costs

Reasoning

The court agrees with the Claimant that the issues can only be determined after a full hearing, and the Respondent's incorporation certificate does not conclusively prove the absence of an employment relationship.

Outcome

Declined with costs

Orders

  • Application to strike out the Claimant's claim is declined
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case