How Poor Drafting Undermined a Strong Case
In the case of Amasava v KRA & Another [2025] KECA 512 (KLR), the appellant presented a compelling case of unfair dismissal. The trial court even ruled his termination unlawful. Yet, despite this favorable finding, procedural and drafting missteps stripped him of the remedies he deserved. (A copy of the judgment is attached for reference.)
Where It Went Wrong
- Vague Constitutional Claims
The appellant alleged constitutional violations but failed to pinpoint the specific provisions breached or explain how the respondent’s actions infringed them. A constitutional petition demands precision - courts require clear, concise allegations to deem a claim valid. This lack of clarity weakened an otherwise potent argument.
- Unsubstantiated Damages
The claim for damages fell apart due to its vagueness. The appellant neither quantified the amount nor provided a basis for calculation, leaving the court unable to assess his entitlement. Courts don’t award damages on a whim; they need a structured, evidence-backed justification. Unwilling to fill the gaps, the trial court dismissed the claim, citing prejudice to the respondent.
- Unsupported Salary and Benefits Demand
Seeking Kshs. 12,217,848 in salary, allowances, and benefits from suspension to December 2015, the appellant stumbled again. He offered no legal or contractual grounding for this figure. Typically, such benefits accrue only to active employees, and with his dismissal, though unlawful, already in effect, the court found no basis to award nearly a decade of back pay.
- Procedural Oversight on Time Limits
The appellant’s delay in challenging his dismissal proved fatal. While he attempted an appeal, he neglected to contest the employer’s procedural rejection of it. This left his claim vulnerable, and the court dismissed it as time-barred without deeper scrutiny.
The Appeal: No Rescue for Poor Pleadings
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision. It acknowledged the unlawful dismissal but underscored a critical principle: courts cannot grant remedies that aren’t properly pleaded. Strong merits alone couldn’t salvage the case from its drafting defects.
Key Takeaway
The case of Amasava v KRA is a stark lesson in legal craftsmanship. Even a slam-dunk case can unravel without meticulous drafting, precise claims, and adherence to procedural rules. In litigation, substance must be matched by form as vague pleadings or sloppy structure can doom the best arguments. For legal practitioners and litigants alike, this case underscores that precision and procedural fidelity are not optional; they’re the bedrock of success.
Adapted From: Benson Odiwuor