Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELRC 675 (KLR)

Nduhiu v Brookhurst International School (Cause E025 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 675 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
6 March 2025
RSRadido Stephen
440 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A school principal withdrew her urgent bid to reverse her dismissal, and the court made her pay the school's legal costs for the abandoned application.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, Hellen Nduhiu, was confirmed as Principal of Brookhurst International School (the Respondent) on or around 2 September 2022. By letter dated 13 December 2024, the Director informed her that the school had decided to separate with her. On 16 January 2025 she sued the Respondent alleging unfair termination of employment and breach of contract, and simultaneously filed a Motion seeking interlocutory orders suspending the termination of her employment and reinstating her benefits, including the immediate resumption of schooling of her children, pending compliance with section 41 of the Employment Act, 2007. The grounds in support were that the Respondent had terminated her contract despite awareness of her mental health status, and that one of her children was scheduled to sit final examinations in May 2025. The Court gave directions and urged the parties to compromise. The Respondent filed a replying affidavit accusing the Claimant of absenteeism, poor performance and conduct contrary to the Code of Conduct, and deponed that her children could continue attending school upon payment of fees. When directed to file submissions, the Claimant instead filed a Notice of Withdrawal of the Motion dated 15 January 2025. On 6 March 2025, Radido Stephen J delivered orders virtually in Nairobi, marking the Motion as withdrawn with costs to the Respondent. The main suit was not determined at this stage.

Key legal issues

#
01

Disposition of an interlocutory Motion following a Notice of Withdrawal

Holding

The Motion was marked as withdrawn with costs to the Respondent

Reasoning

The Claimant had sought interim orders suspending her termination and reinstating her benefits pending the hearing of the main suit. After the Respondent filed a replying affidavit opposing the Motion, the court directed the parties to file and exchange submissions. Rather than file submissions, the Claimant filed a Notice of Withdrawal of the Motion. The court accordingly marked the Motion as withdrawn and awarded costs to the Respondent. The main suit alleging unfair termination and breach of contract remains pending unaffected by the withdrawal of the interim application.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who withdraws an interlocutory application before hearing bears the costs of the application

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Motion dated 15 January 2025 is marked as withdrawn with costs to the Respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; the court was seized of an interlocutory Motion in an employment dispute pending compliance with section 41 of the Employment Act, 2007

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nduhiu v Brookhurst International School (Cause E025 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 675 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/675/eng@2025-03-06

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.