Moses Segite v Kenya Flourspar Limited [2021] KECA 1063 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal dismissed a former employee's appeal, confirming that winning an uncontested case still requires solid evidence and limiting second appeals to questions of law only.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the learned Judge erred in setting aside the trial Court's judgment granting reliefs as he did in favour of the appellant.
Key legal issues
#Scope of the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction on a second appeal
The Court is confined to questions of law only and will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact absent perversity or consideration of extraneous matters.
Section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act restricts the Court's jurisdiction to matters of law. The Court noted that the appellant's grounds were essentially disagreements with factual findings and reductions of quantum, for which no legal error was demonstrated.
Whether the burden of proof shifts when the defendant does not call evidence
It does not. The plaintiff must adduce credible evidence capable of proving the claim on a balance of probabilities notwithstanding the defendant's silence.
Applying sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act and Charterhouse Bank Ltd v Frank N. Kamau, the Court held that failure by the defendant to testify does not lessen the plaintiff's burden; judgment cannot follow merely because evidence is unopposed.
Whether the learned Judge erred in setting aside the trial court's awards apart from severance pay
No error was established warranting interference with the first appellate court's re-evaluation of the evidence.
The Court found the appellant's complaints amounted to dissatisfaction with the reduction of his award. It was for the appellant to demonstrate that the Judge's conclusions were contrary to law or the weight of the evidence, which he failed to do.
Legal principles established
#- On a second appeal the Court of Appeal is confined to matters of law only, unless it is shown that the courts below considered matters they should not have considered, failed to consider matters they should have considered, or that the decision is perverse.
- The burden of proof on a plaintiff remains the same throughout the case and is not lessened where the case proceeds by formal proof or where the defendant does not call evidence; an uncontroverted claim must still be supported by credible evidence.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- ELRC Appeal No. 2 of 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act - second appeal confined to matters of law
Relief refused
#Reinstatement of the trial court's awards (8 months' salary, terminal benefits, terminal package, pay in lieu of notice, leave and travelling allowance)
The appellant failed to demonstrate that the learned Judge's conclusions violated the law or were against the weight of the evidence; the burden of proof did not shift merely because the respondent did not call evidence
Costs
Each party to bear its own costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
This being a second appeal, section 72 (1) Civil Procedure Act restricts this Court's jurisdiction to matters of law only.
the burden on a plaintiff to prove his case remains the same throughout the case even though that burden may become easier to discharge where the matter is not validly defended and that the burden of proof is in no way lessened because the case is heard by way of formal proof.
We find this appeal devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed with orders that each party bears its own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The decree balance is stated as Kshs. 967,836.05 in the trial judgment quotation but as Kshs. 967,836.50 in the appellant's claim on appeal.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Jilo v Sala (Civil Appeal 308 of 2018) [2025] KECA 1194 (KLR)[2025] KECA 1194 (KLR)4 Jul 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Moses Segite v Kenya Flourspar Limited [2021] KECA 1063 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Eldoret Civil Appeal No. 141 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/1063/eng@2021-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.