Bulimo v Maf Carrefour Retail Limited Kenya (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E541 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2469 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court allowed a worker to amend his claim before hearing, but refused one new claim filed after the three-year time limit expired.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether leave to amend the Memorandum of Claim should be granted before hearing
Leave granted, save that the time-barred claim for telephone charges must be deleted from the draft amendment
The court adopted the principle that amendments sought before hearing should be freely allowed and found no prejudice to the respondent on the general amendments, who can amend their defence and file further documents. However, the new claim for deducted telephone charges fell outside the three-year limitation period in section 89 of the Employment Act, and permitting it would deprive the respondent of a limitation defence.
Whether the proposed claim for unlawfully deducted telephone charges is time-barred
It is time-barred; the limitation period expired on 18th March 2025, before the application of 30th April 2025
The claimant was dismissed on 18th March 2022 and, even on the claimant's own concession that this was not a continuing injury, the three-year limitation period under section 89 of the Employment Act expired on 18th March 2025. The application was filed on 6th May 2025, so the new relief was outside the limitation window and could not be introduced by amendment.
Legal principles established
#- Amendments to pleadings sought before the hearing should be freely allowed unless they would deprive the other party of an accrued defence such as limitation
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to amend the Memorandum of Claim as per the draft, on condition of deletion of the expired new claims under paragraph 42(f) titled 'unlawfully deducted monies as telephone charges', paragraph 43(h) and 45(h) of the draft
- 2.The draft defence to be amended accordingly and filed within 7 days
- 3.Respondent granted 14 days to amend their Response, if need be, and serve
- 4.Applicant at liberty to reply within 7 days upon being served
- 5.Parties to comply fully, file trial bundles and avail hard copies to court
- 6.Mention for hearing directions on 27th October 2025
- 7.Costs of the application to be borne by the respondent in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 8 Rules 3 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Rule 34 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bulimo v Maf Carrefour Retail Limited Kenya (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E541 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2469 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2469/eng@2025-09-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.