Saisi v Francis Mulama Kadima t/a Kadima & Company Advocate (Cause 11 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 735 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court refused to halt judgment delivery, holding that a judgment is not delivered until signed and that correcting a typo is no basis for recusal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#When a judgment is considered delivered
A judgment is delivered only when the court pronounces its final decision on the parties' rights and signs it; before that, the court may correct typographical omissions while delivering it
Relying on Black's Law Dictionary (10th Edition) and Order 21 Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court held that a judgment must contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decision and reasons, and is not delivered until pronouncement and signature. The omission noted mid-delivery on 6th December 2024 therefore did not render the judgment delivered, nor did the deferral invalidate the process.
Recusal on grounds of apprehended bias
The application for recusal fails; the respondent did not establish a real possibility of bias under the objective test of reasonableness
Adopting the test in Gachuri v Attorney General and Porter v Magill, the court found that the respondent raised no complaint about the Court's impartiality throughout the four-year trial, and that a typographical omission in the typed judgment, corrected by deferring delivery, is a contemplated and curable irregularity (Rules 74 and 75 of the ELRC Procedure Rules 2024) and not a reasonable basis for recusal.
Whether a mistrial occurred
No mistrial; deferral of a judgment date is within the court's powers under Rule 80 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024
Applying the Black's Law Dictionary definition of a mistrial as a trial ended without determination of the merits because of procedural error or serious misconduct, the court found the trial was fully and procedurally conducted, the record intact, and the respondent's allegation arising only from the deferral of judgment delivery to be far-fetched.
Irregular listing of the urgent application
The application filed after noon on 8th December 2024 should not have been listed for hearing before a judge gave directions under Rule 44; the court condemned the irregularity and directed administrative action
The court found that the application was electronically filed at 16.48 hours, well past noon, yet appeared on a cause list from the Mombasa Registry fixed for hearing at 9.00 a.m. on 9th December 2024 before any judge had given directions, apparently to circumvent delivery of judgment. The court directed the Registrar to investigate and take administrative action against the perpetrator.
Legal principles established
#- A judgment is not delivered until the court pronounces its final decision on the rights and obligations of the parties and signs the judgment
- Recusal is tested objectively on reasonableness and the applicant bears a high onus
- A court may extend or defer delivery of its judgment by a further order under Rule 80 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 8th December, 2024 is dismissed with costs
- 2.The prayer for recusal of the Court is declined
- 3.The prayer for declaration of a mistrial is declined
- 4.The Court's Judgment in the main suit is delivered immediately following the Ruling
- 5.The Court's Registrar is directed to find out who was responsible for the irregular listing of the urgent application and to take appropriate administrative action against such person
- 6.Right of appeal is given
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court; application expressed to be brought under Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 3, 3A, 6 and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Saisi v Francis Mulama Kadima t/a Kadima & Company Advocate (Cause 11 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 735 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No 11 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/735/eng@2025-03-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.