https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2103

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT *&* LABOUR RELATIONS** **COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU** **CAUSE NO. E002 OF 2026** PATRICK OLOO NYAGOKA, DAVID OKORE OCHOLA *&* 2 OTHERS…………………....**CLAIMANTS** **VERSUS** MASENO UNIVERSITY…………………………………….**RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. There is an application Miss Mwangi for the Claimant who has asked court to clear the list and Bundle of documents alongside the authority to Act which were filed on 14th July 2026 by the Claimants to be deemed to be properly on record. She argues that it is in the interest of justice that they be allowed. She submits that the authority to act has been filed in respect and on behalf of the 48 others for whom the 4 Claimants act for. She prays the list and the authority filed on 14th July 2026 be deemed to be properly served upon the Respondent. She asserts the authority to act does not alter the case and that it will not unduly prejudice the Respondent. She argues that if it is not permitted, the claimants will be compelled to file numerous suits and this would lead to multiplicity in pleadings leading to wastage of precious judicial time. She says it would also compel the 48 Claimants to come and testify. She thus respectfully asks court to excuse its discretion by granting leave did in the interests of justice and in line with Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution to eschew technicality in administering justice. She seeks the Court to allow the matter to proceed with these documents to allow for a resolution of all the maters in dispute. 2. Miss Rama for the Respondent opposes the application. She argues that the issue is that the Claimant’s witness was asked questions in cross-examination and the filing is in response to those questions. She states that the case would have proceeded were it not for the conduct of the Claimant on the virtual platform leading to the case being deferred to today. She urges that it would not be in the interests of justice to allow the documents filed in response to cross-examination to be on file. She says this is even made worse by the fact it was the claimant who caused the adjournment to today and he should not benefit from his actions. 3. Miss Mwangi in her brief rejoinder argues that the filing will not occasion a prejudice that cannot be compensated by costs as the Respondent will have occasion to cross-examine on all the evidence before Court. Disposition 1. When cases are filed and courts are then to hear the case, it is always assumed the party has brought all its guns to bear on the matter. There was an adjournment to today from 8th July 2026. Between the 8th of July 2026 which was Wednesday of previous week, the Claimant has now filed a bundle of documents, notably without leave of court. These documents filed on 14th July 2026 are what the Claimant seeks adopted and allowed on record. The documents now inclusive of authority to act in respect of the 48 other Claimants is as a result of the cross examination the Claimant had faced on 8th July 2026. The Claimant has now tried to repair the damage in cross examination by filing the offending bundle. 2. The Court declines to allow the documents to remain on file and orders for their expunging from the Court file as well as the online portal of the Court as no leave was sought and no prior authority granted for the said filing. The case will proceed on the basis of documents that were on record as of 8th July 2026 when the case took off. To allow a belated filing would in this case occasion great prejudice to the Respondents whose defence and position would be altered by the actions of the Claimant. Application disallowed. No orders as to costs. It is so ordered. **Dated and delivered at Kisumu this 21st day of July 2026** **Nzioki wa Makau, MCIArb.** **JUDGE**