Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedRuling dated 30th October 2025 on Notice of Motion dated 10th April 2025· [2025] KEELRC 2997 (KLR)

Musyoki v Kenya Airways Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E644 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2997 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 October 2025
2,747 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a notice of motion dated 10th April 2025, not supported by an affidavit, the Claimant in an employment cause sought leave to amend his amended Statement of Claim and to introduce two additional documents (his December 2018 pay slip and the Respondent's letter of 5th July 2017) as exhibits. The Respondent opposed, contending that the Claimant had closed his case, that the application was late, an afterthought and an abuse of process. The court traced the trial history: the Claimant testified on 26th April 2023, the trial judge was later recused, the matter was reallocated, and on 2nd October 2024 the parties concurred in re-opening the Claimant's case for clarification only. The court held the case was closed on 26th April 2023 but currently re-opened in a limited sense. On the additional documents, the court directed that they be tendered at trial through the ordinary procedure for production of documentary evidence, with the Respondent entitled to object. On amendment, the court found that almost all proposed reliefs were already pleaded, rendering the amendment superfluous. The only new claim - accrued salary from 2012 to 2017 - was time barred under section 89 of the Employment Act, and allowing it would defeat the Respondent's limitation defence and occasion injustice. Relying on Onyuna v Anyango and Daykio Plantations Limited v Galba Mining Limited, the court applied the principle that late amendments are discouraged where unjustified and prejudicial. The application was found unmerited and disallowed, with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant's case was closed

Holding

The case was closed on 26th April 2023 but was re-opened on 2nd October 2024 with the concurrence of the parties, limited to clarification

Reasoning

Although there was no formal entry of closure on the file, the parties' representations on 2nd October 2024 confirmed closure. The Respondent did not object to reopening for clarification, so the Respondent's contention that the case was still closed was inaccurate.

p. 5
02

Whether additional documents may be introduced

Holding

Refused; the documents must follow the ordinary procedure for production of documentary evidence at trial

Reasoning

The reopening of the case was understood as a window to clarify prior testimony only. The Claimant must seek to introduce the documents during trial, and the Respondent reserves the right to object under the rules of evidence, whereupon the court will rule.

p. 5
03

Whether leave to amend should issue

Holding

Refused; most amendments are superfluous as the matters are already pleaded, and the only new claim is time barred

Reasoning

A comparison showed almost all proposed reliefs are already pleaded. The only new claim, accrued salary for 2012 to 2017, was brought beyond the three-year limitation period in section 89 of the Employment Act. Allowing it would deprive the Respondent of its limitation defence and occasion injustice, particularly as the request came after the Claimant had testified.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A litigant may seek to amend pleadings at any stage of the trial, but late amendments are discouraged where they may occasion injustice and must be justified for the delay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 10th April 2025 is disallowed
  2. 2.Costs of the application granted to the Respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Cause pending before the court; directions by the Chief Justice on online proceedings)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Musyoki v Kenya Airways Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E644 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2997 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Ruling dated 30th October 2025 on Notice of Motion dated 10th April 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2997/eng@2025-10-30

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