Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in the extract· [2021] KEELRC 685 (KLR)

Joel Opumbi & 30 others v Devki Steel Mills Limited [2021] KEELRC 685 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 October 2021
703 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 Employment Court allowed an amendment to fix a lawyer's honest error, confirming a claimant listed in an annexure was never time-barred.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimants, allegedly summarily terminated by the respondent in 2014, filed suit on 4th July 2017. By an application dated 12th February 2021, the claimants sought to substitute the 28th claimant — a duplication of the 8th claimant, Charles Kwendo Masinde — with Alfred Onchiri, whose name counsel had erroneously omitted from the face of the Statement of Claim, and to amend the memorandum of claim and tabulations to reflect a Collective Bargaining Agreement obtained after filing. The respondent opposed, arguing that the application was a disguised attempt to introduce a new, time-barred claim by Onchiri contrary to the three-year limitation in Section 90 of the Employment Act, 2007, though it did not address the other amendments. The court found that Onchiri appeared in Appendix 1 to the Statement of Claim, so his claim was filed with his colleagues' on 4th July 2017; the omission and duplication were honest counsel errors and the amendment was a mere formality bringing order and clarity. The court held the intended amendments did not introduce a new claim and that no justification existed to refuse the remaining amendments. The application was allowed, the draft amended Statement of Claim deemed duly filed upon payment of court fees, with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the omission of Alfred Onchiri from the face of the Statement of Claim meant his claim was never filed

Holding

His claim was brought on board on the filing date via the attached list of claimants; the amendment is a mere formality for order and clarity

Reasoning

The Statement of Claim referenced Appendix 1 listing all terminated employees including Onchiri. Reading paragraph 1 with the list shows his claim was filed with his colleagues on 4th July 2017. Correcting the duplicated name of Charles Kwendo Masinde and inserting Onchiri does not introduce a new claim, so Section 90 of the Employment Act time-bar objection fails.

p. 2
02

Whether the respondent opposed the other amendments sought

Holding

The grounds of opposition addressed only the substitution issue; no justification was shown to refuse the remaining amendments

Reasoning

The respondent's grounds of opposition only attacked the application as an attempt to smuggle in a time-barred claimant. The respondent did not deal with the other amendments in the Draft Amended Statement of Claim, so the court found no justification to exclude them and granted the application in full.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An honest counsel error in drafting pleadings should not exclude a party from the temple of justice where the party's claim was in substance filed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application dated 12th February 2021 granted
  2. 2.Draft amended Statement of Claim deemed duly filed upon payment of requisite court fees
  3. 3.Costs in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent powers of the Employment and Labour Relations Court to allow amendment of pleadings (not expressly cited in the ruling)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joel Opumbi & 30 others v Devki Steel Mills Limited [2021] KEELRC 685 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/685/eng@2021-10-21

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