Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELRC 1164 (KLR)

Tallam & 72 others v Teachers Service Commission (Cause 25 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1164 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 April 2025
JRJames Rika
538 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimants, teachers employed by the Teachers Service Commission on permanent and pensionable terms in Nakuru County, alleged underpayment of house allowance from July 2019 to October 2019. They sought declarations that the underpayment was unlawful, payment of Kshs. 20,496,000 in arrears, extension of the outcome to all affected teachers, costs and interest. By an application dated 16th May 2024, supported by the affidavit of lead Claimant John C. Tallam, they sought leave to amend the Statement of Claim to include 118 additional teachers with the same grievances. The Respondent opposed through the affidavit of Kenneth Marangu, Director of Human Resource Management, contending the application was res judicata, since a prior application dated 12th July 2023 had been resolved with a direction that the dispute be handled administratively, and that the matter was an abuse of the doctrine of finality. The Court held that the doctrines of finality and res judicata did not apply, as the claim had not been heard and the Respondent had not exhibited any judgment or ruling addressing the prayers in the Statement of Claim. Although the Claimants had invoked Civil Procedure Rules provisions inapplicable to the E&LRC, the orders sought were permissible under Rules 23 and 34 of the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2024. The Court granted leave to amend within 14 days, allowed the Respondent 14 days to file an amended Statement of Response, directed scheduling of the full claim for hearing, and awarded costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Res judicata / doctrine of finality as a bar to the amendment application

Holding

Res judicata and finality did not apply since the substantive claim remains unheard and no judgment or ruling addressed the prayers in the Statement of Claim

Reasoning

The Court noted the claim has not been heard and the dispute is still pending. The Respondent did not exhibit any judgment or ruling that addressed the prayers in the Statement of Claim; the earlier application dated 12th July 2023 only directed administrative resolution, which does not adjudicate the prayers in the Claim. Consequently, the doctrines of finality and res judicata invoked by the Respondent were not applicable.

p. 4
02

Whether leave to amend to add 118 additional Claimants should be granted

Holding

Leave granted, since the orders sought are permissible under Rules 23 and 34 of the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2024, notwithstanding that the Civil Procedure Rules invoked are inapplicable

Reasoning

Although the Claimants invoked Order 1 Rule 1 and 9 and Order 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which do not apply to the E&LRC, the substance of the orders sought — collective claims and amendment of pleadings — is permissible under Rules 23 and 34 of the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2024. Leave to amend was therefore granted.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Parties with a similar cause of action may institute a collective claim, and pleadings may only be amended after the close of pleadings with leave of the Court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimants are granted leave to amend their Statement of Claim within 14 days, bringing in additional Claimants
  2. 2.The Respondent shall have 14 days from the date of service, to file and serve amended Statement of Response
  3. 3.Parties to thereafter, schedule the full Claim for hearing
  4. 4.Costs in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2024 (Rules 23 and 34)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Tallam & 72 others v Teachers Service Commission (Cause 25 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1164 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1164/eng@2025-04-25

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