Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedCause No 2128 of 2011· [2018] KEELRC 162 (KLR)

Godfrey Otwori Onkundi v Ravine Roses Limited [2018] KEELRC 162 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 December 2018
HWHellen Wasilwa
1,253 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court allowed a worker to correct a company's name in his case years after filing, because the fix caused no prejudice.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 18th October, 2018 in which the Claimant, Alfred Nyandieka, sought leave to amend his Statement of Claim to correct the Respondent's name from Ravine Roses Limited to Ravine Roses and/or Karen Roses Limited. The application was brought under Section 17 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016, Order 8 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, and Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Claimant argued the error was inadvertent, that the entities were the same, and that no prejudice would be caused. The Respondent, through a Replying Affidavit of Victor Nduhiu, opposed, contending that a CR12 showed no connection between Ravine Roses and Karen Roses Limited, that pleadings had closed, that the application came after inordinate delay and was an abuse of process. Both parties filed written submissions, the Respondent relying on the amendment principles in AAT Holdings Ltd v Diamond Shield International Ltd drawn from the Central Kenya Ltd case, and Patel v Amin on delay. Justice Hellen Wasilwa acknowledged the considerable delay since the suit was filed in 2011, but held that the amendment was merely a correction of the Respondent's name causing no prejudice. She exercised her discretion in the Claimant's favour, allowed the application, directed the amendment be effected within 30 days, and ordered costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Amendment of pleadings after close of proceedings and after inordinate delay

Holding

The court exercised its discretion in favour of the amendment because it was a mere correction of the Respondent's name causing no prejudice, notwithstanding the long delay since filing in 2011

Reasoning

The court acknowledged the inordinate delay, the suit having been filed in 2011, but weighed this against the nature of the amendment sought. Since the amendment merely corrected the Respondent's name and the parties were the same entity, it occasioned no prejudice to the Respondent and would enable the court to completely adjudicate the dispute. The court therefore exercised its discretion to allow the amendment, to be effected within 30 days.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An amendment correcting the name of a party, which causes no prejudice, may be allowed even after considerable delay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the Claimant/Applicant to amend the Statement of Claim
  2. 2.The amendment to be effected within 30 days
  3. 3.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016Section 17
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 8 Rule 3(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 8 Rule 3(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 8 Rule 5(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 100

Cases cited (8)

  • Rose Kandie & Another versus Esther Jepkemboi Kiplagat
    (2016) eKLR
  • Institute for Social Accountability & Another versus Parliament of Kenya & 3 others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Jared Onyango Oodindo Versus Civicon Ltd
    (2017) eKLR
  • AAT Holdings Limited versus Diamond Shield International Limited
    (2014) eKLR
  • Central Kenya LTD case
  • Bosire Ongero Vs Royal Media Services
    (2015) eKLR
  • Patel Versus Amin
    Nairobi HCCC No. 159 of 1981
  • Nzirane versus Lukwago
    (1971) EA 328
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 17 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016; Order 8 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Godfrey Otwori Onkundi v Ravine Roses Limited [2018] KEELRC 162 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No 2128 of 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/162/eng@2018-12-18

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