[2015] KEELRC 422 (KLR)
The court found that although the claimant's counsel failed to exercise due diligence by not seeking the amendment earlier, denying leave to amend would render any decree unenforceable against a non-legal entity. The amendment was necessary to ensure that the proper party was before the court, and the respondent did...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELRC 422 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: James Mangale Chai; Respondent: Gigi & Company; Respondent: Zainul Yusufali Dar
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 544 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings
- Outcome
- Leave to amend claim granted; costs awarded against claimant's counsel.
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Costs Awards
- 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
James Mangale Chai
Applicant
Gigi & Company
Respondent
Zainul Yusufali Dar
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant should be granted leave to amend the memorandum of claim to substitute the respondent with Mr Zainul Yusufali Dar.
- 2 Whether the amendment would occasion prejudice to the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the claimant's counsel failed to exercise due diligence by not seeking the amendment earlier, denying leave to amend would render any decree unenforceable against a non-legal entity. The amendment was necessary to ensure that the proper party was before the court, and the respondent did not demonstrate any prejudice that could not be compensated by costs. Therefore, the court granted leave to amend the claim, subject to the claimant's counsel personally paying costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
Leave to amend claim granted; costs awarded against claimant's counsel.
Orders
- Claimant granted leave to file and serve amended claim within 14 days.
- Respondent to file and serve amended defence within 14 days thereafter.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYENT LABOUR AND RELATIONS COURT AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NO. 544 OF 2014
JAMES MANGALE CHAI………………………...............………….CLAIMANT
VERSUS
GIGI & COMPANY ……………………………………….……RESPONDENT
RULING
1 The Notice of Motion before the court is dated 15. 6.2015. It is brought under Rule 14 (6) of ICPRS. It is brought by the claimant seeking leave of the court to amend his memorandum of claim specifically to substitute the respondent with Mr Zainul Yusufali Dar. The reason for the memorandum is that the intended respondent has confessed in his witness statement and also in his testimony under oath that he is the managing partner of Gigi & Company, the respondent firm. The motion came after the close of the claimant case but at the start of the defence case. It is supported by the claimant’s affidavit sworn on 15. 6.2015 which has annexed a draft amended claim.
2 The Motion is opposed by the respondent through the replying affidavit of Mr Zainul Yusufali Dar. He admits that he is a partner in Gigi & Company but contends that the Motion should be dismissed because it is baseless, ground less, misconceived and is an abuse of court process. The motion was disposed of by written submissions.
Analysis and Determination.
3 It is common ground that Mr Zainul Yusuali Dar was and still is the managing partner of the respondent business firm. The issue for determination is whether the court should grant leave to amend the pleadings.
Threshold for leave to Grant
The principle of amendment of pleadings was stated in Civil case No 414 of 1975 Kenya Cold Storage (1964) Ltd vs Over Seas food Services (Africa) Ltd, thus:
“The general rule is that leave to amend will be granted if it will enable the real questions in issue between the parties to be raised and where such amendment will not occasion injury to the opposite party except such as can be sufficiently compensated by costs…”
4 In this case, the claimant who is semi illiterate contended the court he honestly believed that the respondent firm was a limited company. His counsel is however the one to blame for failure to exercise due diligence before filing the suit. He was also negligent and careless if not reckless because after receiving defence and its witness statements, he never sought leave to amend the claim before fixing the suit for hearing. The defence witness statements were filed on 2. 12. 2014 and served on the claimant’s counsel who either never read the same or he read and just ignored them, despite the disclosure that the respondent was a business firm and Mr Zainul Yusufali Dar was partners thereof. The counsel, waited until the claimant’s case was heard and closed and the defence case was opened before he could seek leave to amend the claim to enjoin the said Zainaul Yusuali Dar. This lack of due diligence is now common among the lawyers in coast region and it must come to an end.
5 Be that as it may, the court does not wish to proceed in vain by denying the leave sought otherwise it may pass a decree against no legal person. The amendment of the claim is necessary because it will bring on board a necessary party without who any decree passed by the court may not be executed. The principal for amendment of pleadings stated above is that leave will ordinarily be granted provided that no prejudice will be occasioned on the other party. In this case the respondent did not prove that he would suffer any prejudice. He will have a chance to respond to the suit and also call his witnesses since the trial has not yet closed.
Disposition.
6 For the reasons above leave to amend claim is granted to claimant to file and serve amended claim within 14 days from the date hereof. The respondent has also 14 days to file and serve amended defence. The counsel for the claimant Mr. Stephen Odiaga will personally pay Ksh 3,000 to the respondent as costs for the Notice of Motion dated 15. 6.2015.
Dated and Delivered at Mombasa this 9th day of October 2015.
ONESMUS MAKAU
JUDGE
9. 10. 2015
Coram
Before Justice Onesmus Makau
C/Assistant -
For the Claimant:
For the Respondent:
Court
Ruling delivered in their presence/absence in open court.
ONESMUS MAKAU
JUDGE