Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedMemorandum of Appeal dated 22nd November 2021· [2025] KEELRC 1263 (KLR)

Potters House Academy v Kemer (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E021 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1263 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 April 2025
2,127 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court set aside a Kshs 1.29 million default judgment, ruling a school deserved its day in court because its defence raised genuine triable issues.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court against a ruling of Hon. B.K. Kiptoo SRM delivered on 17th November 2021, dismissing the Appellant's application dated 18th November 2020 seeking stay of execution of a warrant of attachment, setting aside of ex parte proceedings and judgment, leave to file a defence, and cross-examination of the process server. The underlying claim, filed by the Respondent on 18th June 2019, sought compensation and terminal benefits for constructive dismissal. Judgment was entered ex parte on 6th October 2020 awarding Kshs. 1,292,677 in terminal dues, costs, and a certificate of service. The Appellant, a learning institution, contended it was never served with summons and learned of the suit only when auctioneers proclaimed its movable assets. The Respondent maintained that service was effected on the Appellant's headteacher, who acknowledged but declined to sign, and that the Appellant had not demonstrated sufficient cause or a defence with triable issues. The Court, as the first appellate court, re-evaluated the record applying the principles in Pithon Waweru Maina, Toshike Construction, and Nicholas Salat v IEBC on setting aside ex parte judgments. Unable to resolve the conflicting versions on service, and noting the draft defence raised triable issues, the Court held it would not be in the interests of justice to condemn the Appellant unheard. It allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's ruling and the ex parte judgment, remitted the file to the Chief Magistrate's Court at Eldoret for hearing inter-parties, and awarded the Respondent Kshs. 50,000 as throw away costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the trial magistrate erred in dismissing the application to set aside the ex parte judgment and stay execution

Holding

The appeal was allowed; the ruling and the ex parte judgment were set aside and the suit remitted for hearing inter-parties because the draft defence raised triable issues and the court could not resolve the conflicting versions on service.

Reasoning

The first appellate court re-evaluated the record, applying the principles in Pithon Waweru Maina and Toshike Construction: the discretion to set aside an ex parte judgment exists to do justice and avoid injustice from accident or excusable mistake, but not to assist a party deliberately obstructing justice. The process server's return indicated service acknowledged but unsigned, while the Appellant denied service; the court could not determine whether service occurred. Given the triable issues raised in the draft defence and the right to be heard, the dismissal of the application was set aside.

Legal principles established

#
  • A party should not be condemned unheard; where a draft defence raises triable issues and service is disputed, it is not in the interests of justice to deny the party an opportunity to be heard.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Ruling of the trial Court delivered on November 17, 2021 is set aside
  2. 2.The Appellant's application dated 18th November 2020 is allowed
  3. 3.The Judgement of the Trial Court dated 6th October 2020 stands set aside and/or vacated
  4. 4.The original lower court file to be remitted back to the Chief Magistrate's Court at Eldoret for expeditious hearing of the suit inter-parties
  5. 5.The Appellant to pay the Respondent Kshs. 50,000 as throw away costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 10 Rule 11

Cases cited (8)

  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd
    (1968) EA 123, 126
  • Pithon Waweru Maina v Thuka Mugiria
    [1983] eKLR
  • Toshike Construction Company Limited v Harambee Co-operative Savings & another
    [2019] eKLR
  • Patel v EA Cargo Handling Services Ltd
    [1974] EA 75
  • Shah v Mbogo
    [1967] EA 116
  • Shabir Din v Ram Parkash Anand
    (1955) 22 EACA
  • Mbogo v Shah
    [1968] EA 93
  • Nicholas Salat v IEBC & 6 others
    CA (Application) No 228 of 2013
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the ruling of the trial magistrate (Employment and Labour Relations Court appeal against subordinate court ruling)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Potters House Academy v Kemer (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E021 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1263 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Appeal dated 22nd November 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1263/eng@2025-04-30

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