On the importance of properly idntifying necessary parties in legal proceedings: The Case of Boniface Omondi v Mathare Youth Sports Association & Another [2021] KEELRC 671 (KLR)

 The case of Boniface Omondi v Mathare Youth Sports Association & Another [2021] KEELRC 671 (KLR), decided on 29 September 2021, involved an application by Bob Munro, the second respondent, seeking to be struck out from the suit on grounds of misjoinder.​See the Case

Background

Boniface Omondi, the claimant, was employed by the Mathare Youth Sports Association (MYSA), the first respondent. He alleged that his dismissal was instigated by Bob Munro, the second respondent, who was the Chairman of MYSA's Board of Trustees. Omondi contended that Munro played a role in initiating the disciplinary process that led to his termination.​Kenya Law

Application by Bob Munro

Bob Munro filed a Notice of Motion application dated 30 November 2018, seeking the following orders:​

1. That his name be struck off from the claim for misjoinder.
2. That the claim against him be struck off for being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court process.
3. That costs of the application be provided for.​

Munro argued that he was not involved in the day-to-day management of MYSA and had no role in the recruitment, management, or termination of employee contracts. He asserted that the claimant's employment contract was between Omondi and MYSA, and there was no privity of contract between him and Omondi.​Read More

Claimant's Response

Omondi opposed the application, asserting that Munro was responsible for instigating the disciplinary process against him. He claimed that Munro's actions led to his unfair dismissal and that Munro should be held personally liable for the alleged defamation. Omondi further argued that Munro's presence in the suit was necessary for the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the matter.​Kenya Law

Court's Ruling

The Employment and Labour Relations Court, in its ruling, considered the following:

• Misjoinder of Parties: The court examined whether Munro was a necessary party to the suit. It found that other than being mentioned in the introductory part of the claim, Munro was not implicated in the allegations or the reliefs sought by the claimant.​Kenya Law
• Role of Bob Munro: The court noted that Munro's role was limited to receiving a complaint against Omondi and forwarding it to MYSA's Executive Director and Human Resource Manager. There was no evidence to suggest that Munro was involved in the recruitment, management, or termination of Omondi's employment.​Read More
• Legal Precedents: The court referred to legal precedents, including the case of Provincial Construction Company & Another v Attorney General [1991] eKLR, which emphasized that only persons who negotiate and sign a contract and are privy to it are entitled to enforce its terms.​Read more

Conclusion

The court concluded that Bob Munro was not a necessary party to the suit and granted his application to be struck out from the claim. The claimant was ordered to bear the costs of the application.​Read More

This case underscores the importance of properly identifying necessary parties in legal proceedings and the court's discretion to strike out parties who are not essential to the adjudication of the dispute.​