Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No 300 of 2018· [2020] KEELRC 510 (KLR)

Japheth Omosa v Omar Shariff Ali & 3 others [2020] KEELRC 510 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
17 September 2020
1,403 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed an employer's late attempt to drag new parties into a dismissal case, warning that delay kills such applications.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a former head teacher, sued Omar Shariff Ali, Yaye Said Athman, Ali Omar Shariff and Habib Omar Shariff, trading as Istiqama Academy and Tuition Centre, claiming compensation for alleged dismissal. After the Claimant testified (29th July 2019) and the Respondents' case was heard and closed (6th February 2020), and after the Claimant had filed final submissions, the Respondents applied by a notice of motion dated 28th February 2020 for leave to issue third party notices to Juma Boma, Sheikh Ali Idris, Salma Anwar and Ali Hussein, and for an order reopening the case. They contended that they had handed over management of the school to new directors who had the power to sack employees, and that the proposed third parties were liable if the Respondents were held liable. The Claimant opposed, describing the application as an afterthought and abuse of process, noting that pre-trial had long concluded, that the Respondents never sought joinder earlier, and that the termination letter of 1st February 2017 was signed by Omar Shariff as an owner, with a later letter of 1st January 2018 confirming payment of salary, and that any handover agreement did not bind him. The court identified a single issue: whether the Respondents had made out a case for reopening the case to allow issuance of a third party notice. Applying Order 1 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, which requires such applications within fourteen days after close of pleadings, the court found the application came over a year after pleadings closed and after evidence and submissions, with no explanation for the delay and no evidence connecting the proposed third parties to the Claimant's employment or its termination. The application was dismissed with costs to the Claimant, and the Respondents were directed to file final submissions within fourteen days.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondents made out a case for reopening the case and joining third parties at the close of evidence

Holding

The application was unmeritorious and was dismissed with costs

Reasoning

Pleadings closed on 8th August 2018 when the matter was certified ready for hearing. The application was filed more than a year later, after both parties had testified and closed their cases and after the Claimant filed final submissions. The Respondents offered no explanation for the delay and produced no evidence linking the proposed third parties to the Claimant's employment or termination: the termination letter was signed by the 1st Respondent as Director, and the handover agreement with the Board of Governors was executed after the termination.

p. 3
02

Timeliness of a third party notice application under Order 1 Rule 15

Holding

The requirement to apply within fourteen days after close of pleadings was not met

Reasoning

The court applied Order 1 Rule 15(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, which requires an application for leave to issue a third party notice to be made within fourteen days after the close of pleadings, by summons supported by affidavit. The Respondents' application, made after pleadings closed and after trial had concluded, fell far outside this window and no justification was advanced.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Leave to issue a third party notice under Order 1 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be sought promptly, within fourteen days after the close of pleadings, and a party seeking it at a late stage must explain the delay and demonstrate a connection between the third party and the subject matter

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondents' application dated 28th February 2020 seeking leave to issue a third party notice and to reopen the case is dismissed with costs to the Claimant
  2. 2.The Respondents are directed to file final submissions on the main claim within fourteen (14) days from the date of the ruling

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 1 Rule 15(1)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over the claim for compensation for alleged dismissal (not expressly cited in the ruling)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Japheth Omosa v Omar Shariff Ali & 3 others [2020] KEELRC 510 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No 300 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/510/eng@2020-09-17

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