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 1761 of 2014· [2019] KEELRC 1823 (KLR)

Paulo Chacha Isack v Manpower Guard Service [2019] KEELRC 1823 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
4 April 2019
HWHellen Wasilwa
2,354 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court allowed a security guard to correct his ex-employer's name in his lawsuit, ruling the amendment fixed an error rather than starting a new case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a Notice of Motion dated 26th October 2018 by the Claimant, Paulo Chacha Isack, a security guard claiming terminal dues from the Respondent, whom he sued as Manpower Guard Service Limited. He sought leave under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 1 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules to further amend his Statement of Claim so as to join Manpower & Logistics Limited as the 2nd Respondent, and to have the draft Further Amended Statement of Claim deemed filed and served. He explained that he only learned the Respondent's true corporate name on 3rd September 2018 when the Respondent's List of Documents and Certificate of Incorporation were served, and that the Respondent had amended its Statement of Response in 2018 to plead that it was incorporated on 23rd July 2012, long after his employment in 2003. The Respondent opposed, arguing the application was frivolous, delayed a five-year-old suit, and would introduce a time-barred and inconsistent cause of action, relying on authorities including Weldon v Neal, Central Kenya Limited v Trust Bank, and Kenneth Kariuki Githii v Royal Media Services. The court held that the Respondent itself had alluded to Manpower & Logistics Limited as its true name, so the amendment was merely a correction of the Respondent's name and occasioned no prejudice, while avoiding two separate suits. The application was allowed as prayed, with the Amended Plaint to be filed within 14 days.

Key legal issues

#
01

Joinder of a party by amendment

Holding

Leave to amend to join Manpower & Logistics Limited was granted because the Respondent itself alluded to that entity as its true name, so the amendment corrects the name of the Respondent rather than introducing a new party.

Reasoning

The court noted the Respondent amended its defence in 2018 to introduce fresh details about its incorporation date and name, which the Claimant should be allowed to address. Since the Respondent suggested the intended party is its true name, the joinder merely corrects the name and causes no prejudice, while avoiding two separate suits.

p. 4
02

Amendment in response to a defence raised

Holding

The Claimant was allowed to amend because the Respondent only amended its defence in 2018 to bring in fresh details, and a claimant should be allowed to respond to such new matters by amendment.

Reasoning

The court observed that the Respondent's defence originally admitted payment of dues and only in 2018 introduced the plea that the company was incorporated in 2012 and never traded as Target Guard Limited. Fairness required permitting the Claimant to plead to those fresh facts rather than having his case defeated by evasive amendments.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An amendment joining a party under a name the Respondent itself alludes to as its true name is not a new entrant and does not prejudice the Respondent.
  • Amendments that enable the court to adjudicate the real question in dispute and avoid multiple suits are to be allowed where no prejudice is occasioned.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 26th October 2018 is allowed as prayed
  2. 2.Leave granted to further amend the Statement of Claim to join Manpower & Logistics Limited as the 2nd Respondent
  3. 3.The Amended Plaint be filed within 14 days from the date of the Ruling

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 100
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rules 3, 6, 7 and 14
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 8 Rules 3(1), (2), (3), (5) and 5(1)
  • Evidence Act, Cap 80Section 80

Cases cited (6)

  • Mohammed Salim Balala & Another vs. Tor Allan Safaris Limited
    [2015] eKLR
  • Weldon vs. Neal
    [1887] 19 Q.B.D. 394
  • Kanyungu Njogu vs. Daniel Kimani Maingi
    [2000] eKLR
  • Fredrick Waweru vs. Peter Ngure Kimingi
    [2007] eKLR
  • Central Kenya Limited vs. Trust Bank of Kenya & 5 Others
    [2000] eKLR
  • Kenneth Kariuki Githii vs. Royal Media Services Limited
    [2009] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 1 Rules 3, 6, 7 and 14 and Order 8 Rules 3(1), (2), (3), (5) and 5(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Paulo Chacha Isack v Manpower Guard Service [2019] KEELRC 1823 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No 1761 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1823/eng@2019-04-04

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