Sana Industries Limited v Nzioki (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E061 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 209 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court set aside a default judgment, ruling a party's mistakes shouldn't cost them their day in court when the claimant herself had filed duplicate suits.
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 appeal against the dismissal of the application to set aside the default judgment was merited
- 2.Whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to set aside the default judgment entered on 28th September 2023
- 3.Whether the suit at Ruiru was sub judice the Milimani suit (MCELRC E541 of 2023) and thus fatally defective
Key legal issues
#Whether the default judgment should be set aside
The default judgment was set aside because the claimant had duplicated suits over the same cause of action, confusing the appellant who had filed a defence in the duplicate Milimani suit, and the registry transition to e-filing was a plausible excuse for the delay; any inconvenience to the claimant could be compensated by costs
The court re-evaluated the record as a first appellate court. It found the appellant had demonstrated an intention to defend by filing a response in the duplicate Milimani suit. The claimant admitted filing an earlier suit on the same cause of action which was still pending, so she was not an innocent litigant. Section 20 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act directs the court to act without undue regard to technicalities, favouring the right to be heard, with inconvenience addressed by costs.
Whether the Ruiru suit was sub judice the Milimani suit and therefore fatally defective
The court declined to determine sub judice definitively, finding the status of the Milimani suit was neither before it nor disclosed to the trial court, and so no basis existed to interfere with the trial court's finding
Although the court found duplication of suits an abuse of process and criticised the claimant as not an innocent litigant, it held that the specific question of whether the Milimani suit was still pending was not established on the material before either court, leaving the trial court's finding on sub judice undisturbed.
The standard for interfering with the trial court's exercise of discretion
Interference was justified because the trial court's decision was not proportional given the claimant's duplication of claims
Citing Apungu Arthur Kibira v IEBC, the court noted it would only interfere with another court's discretion on a plain and clear misapplication of the law. It concluded the trial magistrate misapprehended the reasons for the appellant's lack of defence and that the decision was disproportionate where the claimant herself had duplicated claims.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal, the court's duty is to re-evaluate, re-assess and re-analyze the evidence and determine whether the trial court's conclusions should stand
- Mistakes and blunders by a party or counsel should not ordinarily deprive a party of a hearing on the merits; defaults can be put right by costs unless there is fraud or intention to overreach
- Duplication of suits between the same parties over the same cause of action is an abuse of court process, and a litigant who files duplicate suits cannot be regarded as an innocent litigant
- An appellate court interferes with the exercise of discretion by a trial court only where there is a plain and clear misapplication of the law
Court orders
#- 1.The default judgment entered on September 28, 2023 be and is hereby set aside.
- 2.The Memorandum of Response dated July 31, 2023 by the Appellant be and is hereby deemed to be properly filed and served.
- 3.The suit being Ruiru MCELRC E007 of 2023 is hereby reopened for hearing interparties before a different Magistrate and the Appellant be and is hereby granted leave to defend the proceedings on merit.
- 4.The decretal sum deposited in court be released to the appellant henceforth.
- 5.Costs of the appeal to the respondent.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Ruiru Law Courts (Magistrates' Court, Employment and Labour Relations registry)
- Ruiru MCELRC E007 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the ruling of the trial magistrate in Ruiru MCELRC E007 of 2023
Relief refused
#Prayer that Ruiru MCELRC E007 of 2023 be dismissed as sub judice Milimani MCELRC E543 of 2023 and fatally defective
The status of the Milimani suit was neither before the appellate court nor disclosed to the trial court, so the court found no basis to interfere with the trial court's finding on sub judice
Prayer that the appeal be allowed in its entirety and the ruling set aside in its entirety (sub judice limb)
The court granted only the alternative prayers; the primary prayer premised on sub judice/abuse of process was not granted
Costs
Costs of the appeal to the respondent.
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.
The default judgment entered on September 28, 2023 be and is hereby set aside.
The suit being Ruiru MCELRC E007 of 2023 is hereby reopened for hearing interparties before a different Magistrate and the Appellant be and is hereby granted leave to defend the proceedings on merit.
The decretal sum deposited in court be released to the appellant henceforth.
Duplication of suits is abhorred as an abuse of court process.
The court as is often said exists for the purpose of deciding the rights of the parties and not the purpose of imposing discipline.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment gives the Milimani duplicate suit two different case numbers: the relief sought refers to 'Milimani MCELRC E543 OF 2023' while the grounds/preliminary objection refer to 'MCELRC E541 OF 2023'
The judgment's own case number, the presiding court's division designation and the neutral citation are not stated; the appeal number must be inferred from the record of appeal described
Ground 3 of the memorandum of appeal states the trial magistrate acted in a biased manner 'against the respondent', which appears to be an error for 'the appellant' given the context
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sana Industries Limited v Nzioki (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E061 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 209 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (memorandum of appeal dated 3rd March 2024, against Ruling in Ruiru MCELRC E007 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/209/eng@2025-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.