Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No E963 of 2022· [2025] KEELRC 1958 (KLR)

Gituanja v Spread Eagle Ltd (Cause E963 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1958 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 June 2025
BMB. O. M. Manani
2,111 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By an order of 19th September 2024, the court allowed the Respondent to amend its Statement of Defence within 14 days, and allowed the Claimant 14 days from service to reply. The Respondent lodged the amended defence only on 22nd October 2024, roughly nineteen days late, citing downtime in the court's e-filing platform. The Claimant applied to strike out the late pleading, while the Respondent applied by notice dated 21st November 2024 to enlarge time and have the pleading deemed properly filed. Both applications were heard by written submissions. The court held that extension of time is an equitable remedy, not a right, but that a party should not be removed from the seat of justice except as a last resort, relying on Stecol Corporation, Chemwolo v Kubende and Belinda Murai. It found the Respondent had not produced cogent evidence of the alleged e-filing difficulties, so the delay likely arose from missteps by its advocates. On the Claimant's reliance on the Supreme Court's Salat decision, the court followed the Court of Appeal's holding in Charles Karanja Kiiru v Charles Githinji Muigwa that Salat was confined to rule 53 of the Supreme Court Rules and not of general application, and noted that rule 80 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 is wide enough to deem documents filed out of time as properly filed in the interest of justice. The court allowed the application dated 21st November 2024, enlarged time, deemed the amended defence properly filed and served, granted the Claimant fourteen days to reply, awarded the Claimant costs of that application, and dismissed the striking-out application with each party bearing its own costs. Ruling delivered online on 30th June 2025 by B. O. M. Manani, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent's delay of approximately 19 days in filing the amended Statement of Defence was excusable

Holding

The Respondent did not present cogent evidence of e-filing platform challenges; the delay may have been occasioned by missteps on their part

Reasoning

The Respondent attributed the delay to downtime in the court's e-filing platform, but produced no evidence supporting the alleged system challenges. The court found the delay likely stemmed from the advocates' own missteps. Nonetheless, having regard to the equity-oriented authorities, depriving the Respondent of the chance to file the defence would be draconian and a last resort measure the court was not prepared to impose at this stage.

p. 3
02

Whether filing a document out of time before seeking enlargement renders it a nullity, per Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat

Holding

The Salat position is limited to rule 53 of the Supreme Court Rules and is not of general application; Order 50 rule 6-type provisions permit enlargement upon such terms as justice requires

Reasoning

The court, following the Court of Appeal in Charles Karanja Kiiru v Charles Githinji Muigwa, held that the Supreme Court's Salat nullity position was confined to rule 53 of the Supreme Court Rules and did not generally bar deeming documents filed out of time. The court also noted that even the Supreme Court in Salat ultimately gave the applicant leave to file a proper appeal, demonstrating that litigants are not locked out.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time to file documents out of time is not a matter of right and should only be granted in deserving instances
  • Rule 80 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 is sufficiently wide to permit the court to deem documents filed out of time as properly filed in the interest of justice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Time granted to the Respondent to file an amended Statement of Defence is enlarged
  2. 2.The amended Statement of Defence filed on 22nd October 2024 is deemed as having been properly filed and served
  3. 3.The Claimant is granted leave to file and serve his reply to the amended Statement of Defence within fourteen (14) days of the ruling
  4. 4.The Claimant is granted costs of the application dated 21st November 2024
  5. 5.The application dated 25th November 2024 is dismissed
  6. 6.Each party shall bear own costs in respect of the application dated 25th November 2024

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024rule 80
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024Rule 28(3)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 50 rule 6
  • Supreme Court Rulesrule 53

Cases cited (5)

  • Stecol Corporation Limited v Susan Awuor Mudemb
    [2021] eKLR
  • Philip Keiptoo Chemwolo & another vs. Augustine Kubende
    [1986] eKLR
  • Belinda Murai & 9 Others vs. Amos Wainaina
    [1979] eKLR
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Charles Karanja Kiiru v Charles Githinji Muigwa
    [2017] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 80 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gituanja v Spread Eagle Ltd (Cause E963 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1958 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E963 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1958/eng@2025-06-30

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