Nahashon Oywa Amanga v Board of Management Rift Valley Institute of Science and Technology [2019] KEELRC 1100 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An employment claim was struck out in Nakuru because its verifying affidavit was undated and commissioned by a non-advocate—a fatal paperwork failure.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Commissioning of Verifying Affidavit
The Verifying Affidavit was incurably defective: it was undated and commissioned by a person not on the Roll of Advocates, and the claimant swore he never appeared before that person
The court conducted due diligence and found no advocate named Elias Ngugi Ng'ang'a on the Roll of Advocates; the only similar name was a deceased advocate who practised in Nairobi, not Nakuru. The claimant testified he signed the affidavit before his own advocate, not a commissioner for oaths, which the court held to be irregular and a conflict of interest, offending the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act.
Whether the defect is a mere technicality
The defect is not a curable technicality and Article 159 does not cure it; it goes to the root of the suit
Relying on Stephen M Mogaka v IEBC, the court held that non-compliance with the mandatory provisions on commissioning of affidavits is not a defect in form or a technical irregularity but one that is incurably defective, as it goes to the root of the substantive issue before the court.
Legal principles established
#- Section 5 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act is mandatory: a commissioner for oaths must state truly in the jurat the place and date the oath was taken, and an undated affidavit commissioned by a non-advocate is incurably defective and cannot be saved by Article 159
Court orders
#- 1.The Memorandum of Claim is struck out for want of a proper Verifying Affidavit
- 2.The suit shall remain alive only for purposes of the counter-claim and response to the same
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over the Memorandum of Claim (statutory provision not expressly cited in extract)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nahashon Oywa Amanga v Board of Management Rift Valley Institute of Science and Technology [2019] KEELRC 1100 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1100/eng@2019-03-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.