[2018] KEELRC 351 (KLR)
The court held that while failure to meet a timeline set by the court is not in itself sufficient cause to deny leave to amend, the applicant's failure to annex a draft petition meant the court could not determine whether the proposed amendment would cause injustice or introduce a time-barred cause of action. As a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 351 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Lucy Methu; Respondent: County Commissioner Nyandarua County; Respondent: Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Interior & Coordination of National Government; Respondent: Public Service Commission; Respondent: Wanjiku Muhia Nyandarua Women Representative
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 127 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Court Discretion, Time Barred Claims
- 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
Lucy Methu
Applicant
County Commissioner Nyandarua County
Respondent
Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Interior & Coordination of National Government
Respondent
Public Service Commission
Respondent
Wanjiku Muhia Nyandarua Women Representative
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend pleadings after lapse of the court-set timeline.
- 2 Whether the proposed amendment would introduce a new, time-barred cause of action.
- 3 Whether failure to annex a draft petition affects the court's ability to determine the merits of the amendment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that while failure to meet a timeline set by the court is not in itself sufficient cause to deny leave to amend, the applicant's failure to annex a draft petition meant the court could not determine whether the proposed amendment would cause injustice or introduce a time-barred cause of action. As a result, the application for leave to amend was found to be without merit and was dismissed. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs for the application.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The motion by the applicant for leave to amend is dismissed.
- Each party to bear their own costs for the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS
COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
CAUSE NO. 127 OF 2017
LUCY METHU.................................................................................CLAIMANT /APPLICANT
VERSUS
COUNTY COMMISSIONER NYANDARUA COUNTY.........................1ST RESPONDENT
CABINET SECRETARY MINISTRY OF INTERIOR &
CORDINATION OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT...............................2NDRESPONDENT
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.........................................................3RD RESPONDENT
WANJIKU MUHIA NYANDARUA WOMEN REPRESENTATIVE....4TH RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Petitioner/Applicant herein seeks leave to amend. Leave therefor had been granted on 5th April 2018 and the applicant failed to amend within the time granted by the Court. The motion was opposed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents who filed a replying affidavit on 12th November 2018 sworn by Dr. Eng. Karanja Kibicho, CBS the Principal Secretary in the Ministry of Interior &Coordination of National Government.
2. The leave to amend is a discretionary remedy. A court should not grant a request for amendment of pleadings if the proposed amendment would have the effect of creating a new cause of action which is time- barred as this is contra statute. An amendment as sought should be freely allowed provided it is not made in bad faith and if it will not occasion injustice to the other party that cannot be compensated by way of costs. In other words, an amendment that will cause injustice to the other side should not be allowed.
3. The Petitioner herein failed to meet a timeline set by the court. That of itself is not sufficient cause to deny the leave to amend sought. The Petitioner has not annexed a draft petition showing the intended amendment. I cannot therefore discern if the amendment is one that will cause the Respondents any injustice or one that will introduce a fresh cause of action that is time barred. It is not clear if the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. From the foregoing it is clear the motion by the Petitioner/Applicant is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs for the application.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 6th day of December 2018
Nzioki wa Makau
JUDGE