Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedStatement of Claim filed 13th June 2022 (Employment and Labour Relations Court)· [2025] KEELRC 193 (KLR)

Mugo v Biodeal Laboratory Limited (Cause E401 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 193 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
31 January 2025
JRJames Rika
997 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment claim for Kshs. 738,602 collapsed in court because the claimant, under cross-examination, disowned her own Statement of Claim on oath.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, acting in person, sued her former employer claiming she was employed on 16th February 2016 as a Medical Sales Representative at a monthly salary of Kshs. 30,039, and that on 18th October 2018 the Respondent's Human Resource Manager e-mailed her that her services were no longer needed. After unsuccessful trade union engagement and conciliation - where the Conciliator recommended payment of CBA benefits, allowances, notice, pro-rata leave and eight months' salary as compensation for unfair termination - she sought judgment on those recommendations: declaration of unfair termination, Kshs. 738,602 in various heads, a Certificate of Service, costs and interest. The Respondent, through a Replying Affidavit sworn by Mital Shah, denied the claim, asserting the CBA did not govern her contract, that she was not a union member, and that she was a perennial absentee who absconded, so that the Respondent never terminated her contract. At hearing on 19th March 2024, the Claimant in cross-examination disowned her own Statement of Claim, asked the Court not to rely on it, and agreed with statements by the Respondent's advocates. Shah testified that she absconded and her salary was stopped. The Court framed three issues: tenability of the claim, unfair termination, and entitlement to prayers. Holding that while latitude is given to litigants in person, the Court cannot correct sworn evidence, the Court found the claim untenable and declined it, making no order on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Tenability of a claim where the claimant disowns her own pleadings on oath

Holding

The Claim was untenable and was declined

Reasoning

The Claimant, though acting in person, explicitly denied her Statement of Claim in cross-examination and asked the Court not to rely on it, while agreeing with the Respondent's advocate's statements. The Court grants latitude to litigants in person but there are limits; it cannot advise parties on evidence or correct sworn statements. With the claim disowned by its own author, there was no tenable case to determine on termination or remedies.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The Court cannot correct or substitute a party's evidence given on oath, even where the party acts in person
  • A claimant who disowns their own pleadings on oath renders the claim untenable and the Court need look no further

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claim is declined
  2. 2.No order on the costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016Procedural standards for pleadings
  • Electronic Case Management Practice Directions, 2020Practice Direction 6[2]
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mugo v Biodeal Laboratory Limited (Cause E401 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 193 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Statement of Claim filed 13th June 2022 (Employment and Labour Relations Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/193/eng@2025-01-31

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