Mbugua v Stempma Enterprises Limited; Tovuti Group Limited (Interested Party) (Petition E016 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2371 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that emailing court documents to a company's registered email address counts as valid service, so ignoring them can cost you.
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 court orders issued on 12th February 2025 should be set aside and the respondent given leave to respond to the petitioner's motion dated 23rd January 2025
Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent was served with the pleadings and Notice of Motion dated 23rd January 2025
Service was properly effected by email to the respondent's known email address and proved by an unchallenged affidavit of service corroborated by the CR-12
The court record showed the applicant was served by email and phone using contacts listed in the CR-12 dated 5th December 2024, and an affidavit of service sworn by the petitioner's advocate on 29th January 2025. The affidavit of service was never challenged and the applicant did not deny that the email and phone number belonged to it or its sole director. Service by electronic mail to a corporate body's known email address is expressly permitted under Rule 28(1) of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2024.
Whether the ex-parte orders violated the respondent's clients' right to privacy
No breach of privacy was shown since the information sought (transactions on the petitioner's phone) is not confidential as between the respondent and its clients
The court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate that the disclosure of information relating to transactions done on the petitioner's phone would violate the privacy of the respondent's clients. The court reasoned that such transactional information is not confidential as between the respondent and its clients, and questioned why the respondent had used the petitioner's personal number instead of the director's or the company's private phone number, undermining the privacy claim.
Legal principles established
#- Service on a corporate body may be effected by sending pleadings by electronic mail to the known email address of the corporate body under Rule 28(1) of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2024
- An unchallenged affidavit of service is proof of due service, and where service is proven, an application to set aside ex-parte orders on grounds of want of service fails
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 10th March 2025 is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance interlocutory application under the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2024 (Rule 28(1))
Relief refused
#Setting aside and/or varying the ex-parte orders issued on 12th February 2025
The respondent was duly served with the pleadings and motion dated 23rd January 2025; the affidavit of service was not challenged
Leave to file a response to the application dated 23rd January 2025 and be heard on merit
Service was properly effected by email under Rule 28(1) of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2024
Stay of execution of the ex-parte orders issued on 12th February 2025
Flowing from the dismissal of the main motion, no stay was granted
Costs
The Notice of Motion dated 10th March 2025 was dismissed with costs (costs to the petitioner).
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.
In the circumstances, I find that the applicant was duly served with the Notice of motion dated 23rd January 2025 and it failed to respond and attend court on 12th February 2025 for hearing.
Rule 28(1) of the ELRC Procedure Rules, 2024 provides for several methods of service on a corporate body including: “ (v) sending the pleadings by electronic mail to the known email address of the corporate body.”
The Notice of motion dated 10th March 2025 obviously lacks merits. In the circumstances, I dismiss it with costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mbugua v Stempma Enterprises Limited; Tovuti Group Limited (Interested Party) (Petition E016 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2371 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract (petition respondent's Notice of Motion dated 10th March 2025; relates to petitioner's Notice of Motion dated 23rd January 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2371/eng@2025-08-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.