Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in judgment· [2013] KEELRC 825 (KLR)

Mathew Munyao And 133 Others v General Plastics [2013] KEELRC 825 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
17 September 2013
MOMAUREEN ONYANGO
849 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court allowed 134 employees to be added to an employment claim, ruling that amendments should be allowed unless real, specific prejudice is shown.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Industrial Court on the Claimant's Notice of Motion dated 27th May 2013, brought under Order 8 rules 3 and 5 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, and Sections 3A and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act. Mathew Munyao, the Claimant representing 133 other Claimants, sought leave to amend the Memorandum of Claim to annex a list of the 133 Claimants and a further authority to act, and for the Respondent to be allowed to file an amended defence. The Respondent opposed through the Replying Affidavit of its Human Resource Manager, Lucas K. Karanja, arguing that a similar application had been declined on 5th November 2012, that the amendment would cause prejudice and injustice, that the Claimant had known of the defects for over two years, and that no authority to act had been annexed. Maureen Onyango J held that amendment is provided for under Rule 14(6) and (7) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010 and may be made on a party's request or the court's directions. The record showed no prior refusal of leave on 5th November 2012 - only an adjournment had been sought and granted. The Respondent had not specified any prejudice, and the authority-to-act objection was premature against a draft. The court allowed the Claimant to file the amended Memorandum of Claim within 14 days, directed that the Amended Claim include the authority to act and a breakdown of each of the 134 claimants' claims, and ordered each party to bear its own costs of the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave to amend the Memorandum of Claim should be granted

Holding

Leave to amend was granted; the amendment would include the names of all 134 claimants and an authority to act

Reasoning

Amendment of pleadings is expressly provided for under Rule 14(6) and (7) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010. The Claimant's stated purpose - bringing on record the names of all the Claimants and a further authority to act - was legitimate. The Respondent's grounds of opposition failed: the record showed no prior denial of leave, no particularised prejudice, and the authority objection was premature against a draft.

p. 2
02

Whether a prior application of 5th November 2012 had been declined, barring the present amendment

Holding

No such denial existed; the record showed only an adjournment was sought and granted

Reasoning

The Respondent asserted that leave to amend had been declined on 5th November 2012. The court checked the record and found nothing to support that assertion: the claimant had sought an adjournment to enable it amend its pleadings, and the adjournment was granted. This factual ground of opposition therefore collapsed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Amendment of pleadings may be effected at the request of a party or on the directions of the court
  • An amendment will not be refused on the ground of prejudice where the party alleging it has not specified the prejudice or injustice it will suffer
  • An objection based on absence of authority to act is premature at the amendment stage and only valid once the amended claim is filed without the authority

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant is allowed to file the amended Memorandum of Claim within 14 days from the date of the ruling
  2. 2.The Amended Claim should include the authority to act and a breakdown of the Claims by each of the 134 claimants
  3. 3.Each party shall bear its costs of this application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 8 rules 3 and 5
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 100
  • Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010Rule 14(6) and (7)
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 14(6) and (7) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010; Order 8 rules 3 and 5, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and Sections 3A and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mathew Munyao And 133 Others v General Plastics [2013] KEELRC 825 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/825/eng@2013-09-17

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.