Rachuonyo v Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science & Technology (Cause E053 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 305 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to rescue an employer who repeatedly skipped its own case, confirming courts won't reward indolent litigants seeking to set aside default judgments.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ex parte judgment should be set aside under Order 10 Rule 11
The application was dismissed; the applicant failed to offer any credible explanation for its absence from proceedings after 30th April 2024.
The court traced the history showing 18 court sessions in which the respondent (applicant herein) was represented in only 8. The court had twice accommodated the applicant, including setting aside an earlier undefended-claim directive on 27th June 2024. Yet the applicant skipped subsequent mentions, the judgment date was served, and the motion came 48 days after judgment. No reason, not even a weak one, was given for the in-house counsels' absence, and the applicant could not dissociate itself from its own supervised employees.
Whether the applicant's right to be heard under Articles 48 and 50 was violated
No; the applicant was afforded ample opportunity to be heard and squandered it.
The court found the claim that the right to be heard was violated 'comedic' given the applicant's history. It had obtained a ruling setting aside the earlier default, was directed to pay court fees and serve its draft response, and failed to appear even for the ruling on its own application whose date was taken in the presence of its counsel.
Whether the mistakes of in-house counsel should be visited on the litigant
No; the applicant was indolent and, having failed to supervise its in-house counsel or demand reports, is the author of its own misfortune.
The affidavit did not identify who committed what mistake or omission, when the counsels were appointed, or when the applicant learnt they were not attending. Since the counsels were employees under the applicant's superintendence, evidence of supervision, periodic reports or status updates was needed. Reliance on Belinda Murai did not assist absent such explanation.
Legal principles established
#- The discretion to set aside an ex parte judgment exists to avoid injustice from accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake, not to assist a party who deliberately obstructs or delays justice.
- A litigant has a duty to pursue prosecution of its case and cannot rely solely on a mistake by counsel; the litigant must follow up on the progress of the case.
- A mistake by counsel is still a mistake irrespective of who committed it, but the litigant must explain the mistake and show it is excusable.
- An applicant seeking setting aside of a default judgment bears the burden of demonstrating a reason for non-participation amounting to accident, inadvertence or excusable error.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's Notice of Motion dated 29th November, 2024 is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 10 Rule 11 and Order 51 Rules 1 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Articles 48 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya
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.
- Riechi & 2 others v Tiema & 6 others (Environment & Land Case E003 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 1395 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 1395 (KLR)14 Mar 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rachuonyo v Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science & Technology (Cause E053 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 305 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/305/eng@2025-02-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.