[2021] KEELRC 683 (KLR)
The court held that the Respondent was required to seek leave before filing additional documents after the close of pleadings, as stipulated by Rule 14(6) of the Employment & Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016. The fact that the Claimant had previously caused an adjournment did not entitle the Respondent...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELRC 683 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Isaac Babere Wantahe; Respondent: St. Paul’s Catholic University Chapel
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 2192 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Objection to Late Filing of Documents
- Outcome
- Objection upheld; Respondent's documents struck out.
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Late Filing of Documents, Leave of Court, Procedure Rules, Admissibility of Evidence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Isaac Babere Wantahe
Claimant
St. Paul’s Catholic University Chapel
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Objection to Late Filing of Documents
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondent could file additional documents without seeking leave of the court after close of pleadings.
- 2 Whether documents filed by the Respondent on 27th September 2021 should be struck out for lack of leave.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Respondent was required to seek leave before filing additional documents after the close of pleadings, as stipulated by Rule 14(6) of the Employment & Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016. The fact that the Claimant had previously caused an adjournment did not entitle the Respondent to disregard the procedural requirements. Since the Respondent failed to obtain leave, the court had no option but to strike out the documents filed on 27th September 2021. The court emphasized the need for certainty and adherence to procedural rules in employment litigation.
Court Disposition
Objection upheld; Respondent's documents struck out.
Orders
- The documents filed by the Respondent on 27th September 2021 are struck out for want of leave.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS
COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 2192 OF 2015
ISAAC BABERE WANTAHE...............................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
ST. PAUL’S CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY CHAPEL......................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. There is objection to the filing of the bundle of documents by the Respondent on 29th September, 2021. The Claimant opposed to the documents filed by the Respondent as no leave was sought and no prior notice issued before filing. Mr. Ng’ang’a for the Claimant states the Respondent did not therefore place the documents on record properly.
2. The Respondent is opposed and asserts that it is not true that the Respondent has not been keen to have the case heard and determined. Miss Mwagwabi for the Respondent asserts that it is indeed the Claimant who has not been ready to proceed on previous occasion. She stated that the witness the Respondent intended to rely on was no longer working with the Respondent in post and as such prayed for the documents to be admitted.
3. Mr. Ng’ang’a in a brief response submitted that his colleague had not responded to the gist of the matter which is that the Respondent did not seek leave. He stated that they indeed could have been having challenges and even if there were challenges the Respondent ought to have sought leave from for filing of the documents. He submitted for that reason the bundle filed on 27th September 2021 and served upon them on 30th September 2021 ought to be struck out.
4. Under the Employment Act, some degree of certainty in proceeding is anticipated and under the Employment & Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016; per Rule 13 and 14, Parties may file documents as stipulated in the Rules. The Parties are referred to Rule 14(6) which provides that a Party may amend pleadings after close citing with leave of the Court.
5. The exhibits produced on 27th September 2021 fall in this spectrum of pleadings. The Claimant is right in his surmise that the documents ought to have been filed with leave of the Court. The Court allowed the Claimant an adjournment on 15th June 2021 and the Respondent had time from mid-June to put its house in order. Having failed to and despite the Claimant having been the cause of the last adjournment, it did not allow for an abridgment of the Rules. The Respondent ought to have sought leave and in the absence of said leave the Court has no option but to strike out the documents filed on 27th September 2021 without leave.
It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021
NZIOKI WA MAKAU
JUDGE