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 judgment (Cause filed 22 September 2025)· [2025] KEELRC 2880 (KLR)

Wachinga v Kenya Reinsurance Corporation Limited (Cause E915 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2880 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
23 October 2025
RSRadido Stephen
644 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

An employee suing over a disciplinary process withdrew his case mid-hearing, and the court left costs to the parties to negotiate themselves.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, Hillary Wachinga, sued Kenya Reinsurance Corporation Ltd on 22 September 2025 alleging that disciplinary proceedings commenced against him violated his constitutional rights to fair hearing, fair labour practices and fair administrative action. Together with the Cause he filed a Motion seeking, inter alia, a temporary injunction restraining a disciplinary hearing scheduled for 23 September 2025. He relied on suspension and show cause letters of 2 and 3 September 2025, arguing they were contradictory, inconsistent with the Respondent's HR policies, and issued before he was furnished with an investigations report. The Court, ex parte, granted a stay of the disciplinary process and gave directions. The Respondent opposed through a replying affidavit, explaining that disciplinary action arose from the Claimant's failure to investigate and report to the Board within 72 hours as instructed, his recommendation to terminate two employees before they responded, and his instructions for their termination without Board involvement; it maintained the letters were not contradictory and that the Claimant had admitted failing to obey Board instructions on 12 September 2025. After hearing both parties on 7 October 2025, the Court reserved its Ruling to 23 October 2025. However, on 8 October 2025 the Claimant filed a Notice to Withdraw the Motion and the entire Cause. Delivering its decision on 23 October 2025, the Court marked the Cause as withdrawn and, because the Notice did not address costs and the subsisting relationship between the parties was unknown, left the question of costs to the parties' agreement.

Key legal issues

#
01

Effect of a Notice of Withdrawal of a Motion and Cause on a pending interlocutory application

Holding

The Cause is marked as withdrawn upon the filing of the Notice of Withdrawal, ending consideration of the pending Motion

Reasoning

The Claimant filed a Notice to Withdraw the Motion dated 22 September 2025 and the Cause on 8 October 2025, after the hearing but before delivery of the reserved Ruling. With no live Cause, the Court marked the Cause as withdrawn and proceeded only to deal with costs, which the Notice had not addressed.

p. 2
02

Costs upon withdrawal where the Notice of Withdrawal is silent on costs

Holding

Costs were left to the agreement of the parties rather than awarded, since the Notice did not advert to costs and the subsisting relationship between the parties was unknown

Reasoning

Although the general rule is that costs follow the event, the Court noted the Notice of Withdrawal did not address costs and that it was not aware of the subsisting relationship between the parties. Rather than making an award, it reserved the question to the parties' own agreement, an appropriate exercise of discretion in a withdrawal.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a Notice of Withdrawal does not address costs and the court is unaware of the subsisting relationship between the parties, the court may leave costs to the parties' agreement rather than awarding them to the other side

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Cause is marked as withdrawn in light of the Notice of Withdrawal dated and filed on 8 October 2025
  2. 2.The question of costs is left to agreement by the parties
Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction; constitutional violation of rights in respect of disciplinary proceedings alleged under the employment law framework

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wachinga v Kenya Reinsurance Corporation Limited (Cause E915 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2880 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Cause filed 22 September 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2880/eng@2025-10-23

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