Obara v Technical University of Kenya (Cause E186 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 559 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 Respondent's Response disclosed triable issues or a reasonable defence
- 2.Whether the Response was a mere blanket denial constituting an abuse of process warranting striking out
- 3.Whether it was appropriate to strike out the Defence and enter judgment before pre-trial directions were issued
Key legal issues
#Whether the Response should be struck out for failing to disclose a reasonable defence
The Motion was dismissed because the Response raised triable issues and pre-trial directions had not been issued
The Court noted the Respondent filed a list of witnesses and documents on the same day as the Response, and later filed a witness statement and supplementary documents. The Response specifically pleaded breach of contract/misconduct with instances outlined. In those circumstances, blanket-denial criticisms failed, and striking out the Response before pre-trial directions would improperly shut the Respondent out from ventilating its case.
Legal principles established
#- A defence raising pleaded instances of breach/misconduct and supported by filed witness statements and documents raises a triable issue and should not be struck out before pre-trial directions
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 28 October 2024 was dismissed
- 2.Costs of the Motion awarded to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over unfair termination of employment (constructive dismissal) and breach of contract claims
Relief refused
#An order striking out the Respondent's Defence dated 8 May 2024
The Response raised triable issues and pre-trial directions had not yet been issued
Entry of judgment in favour of the Claimant as prayed in the Statement of Claim
Striking out the Response would shut the Respondent out from ventilating its case
Costs
The Motion was dismissed with costs 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.
Clearly, the Response raises a triable issue.
Flowing from the above, the Court finds the Motion dated 28 October 2024 without merit. It is dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The Motion is described as dated 28 October 2024 in the orders, while the record states it was filed on 31 October 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Obara v Technical University of Kenya (Cause E186 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 559 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/559/eng@2025-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.