[2018] KEELRC 1091 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 1091 (KLR)

The court found that the claimant's attempt to amend the memorandum of claim to introduce new particulars such as underpayment, overtime, and related claims was time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act. Since these claims were not pleaded at the inception of the suit on 28th June 2016, the limitation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 1091 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Michael Ng'ang'a Ruiri; Respondent: Karani Mutitu
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 133 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Cause / Ruling on Application to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
AN Makau
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Periods, Employment Benefits, Overtime Claims
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Periods Employment Benefits Overtime Claims

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Ng'ang'a Ruiri

Applicant

Karani Mutitu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Cause / Ruling on Application to Amend Pleadings

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be granted leave to amend the memorandum of claim to introduce new particulars including underpayment, overtime, leave dues, house allowance, salary in lieu of notice, and service pay.
  2. 2 Whether the introduction of new claims is barred by the limitation period under Section 90 of the Employment Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant's attempt to amend the memorandum of claim to introduce new particulars such as underpayment, overtime, and related claims was time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act. Since these claims were not pleaded at the inception of the suit on 28th June 2016, the limitation period had already set in, and the claimant was precluded from introducing them. The court held that the claim is confined to those claims set out in the original claim as filed. Consequently, the claimant's application for leave to amend was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant's notice of motion application to amend the memorandum of claim is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.