Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedEldoret CMCC No. E069 of 2023 (appeal therein; Memorandum of Appeal dated 7th February, 2025)· [2025] KEELRC 2924 (KLR)

Kondowa v Abyssinia Iron & Steel Limited & another (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2924 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
23 October 2025
2,173 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

#

A Kenyan court has confirmed that a default judgment won against a party who was never properly served will be thrown out as a matter of right.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal against the ruling of Hon. Cherono M. Kesse (SPM) in Eldoret CMCC No. E069 of 2023, which allowed an application to set aside an ex parte judgment entered in favour of the Appellant after formal proof. The Appellant argued that service of the demand letter, statement of claim, summons and mention notices was properly effected at the 1st Respondent's factory premises, that affidavits of service were filed, and that the absence of a company stamp did not invalidate service. The 1st Respondent maintained it was never served, that the affidavits of service were falsified, that it does not share premises with the 2nd Respondent, and that a draft defence disclosed triable issues. The court framed two issues: whether the trial court erred in setting aside the ex parte judgment, and whether the Appellant was entitled to the orders sought. Relying on Order 10 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Court of Appeal's decision in James Kanyiita Nderitu v Marios Philotas Ghikas, the court noted that a default judgment entered against a party not properly served is irregular and set aside as of right, whereas a regular judgment is set aside in the court's discretion. The trial court had found no proper service, rendering the judgment irregular. Applying Mombasa Cement Limited v Kitsao on non-interference with a lower court's discretion, the court found the trial court's discretion judiciously exercised and dismissed the appeal, with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the default judgment was regular or irregular

Holding

The judgment was irregular because the Respondents were found not to have been properly served, hence it was properly set aside as of right

Reasoning

The trial court found, based on the affidavit in support of the setting-aside application, that there was no proper service. Where a judgment is entered against a defendant not properly served, it is irregular and set aside ex debito justitiae; the court need not consider triable issues or delay. The appellate court found no basis to disturb the trial court's discretionary finding.

p. 5
02

Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion

Holding

No; the discretion was exercised judiciously and was supported by the evidence

Reasoning

An appellate court will not interfere with a lower court's exercise of discretion unless it is clearly wrong due to misdirection, reliance on wrong matters, or failure to consider relevant matters resulting in a wrong conclusion. The Appellant advanced no compelling reason to disagree with the trial court's finding.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A first appellate court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by an inferior court unless satisfied the decision is clearly wrong due to misdirection or misappreciation of relevant matters
  • A default judgment entered against a defendant not properly served is irregular and must be set aside as a matter of right, without inquiry into triable issues or delay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal dismissed
  2. 2.Each party shall bear their own costs of this appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 10 Rule 11
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 5 rule 3

Cases cited (12)

  • Kenya Power and Lighting Company Limited v Benzene Holding Limited
    [2016]
  • Shadrack Arap Boiwo v Bodi Bach
    [1987] eKLR
  • James Kanyiita Nderitu v Marios Philota Ghikas & another
    [2016] eKLR
  • Agigreen Consulting Corp Limited v National Irrigation Board
    [2020]
  • Gladys Jepkosgei Boss v Star Publications Limited
    [2021] eKLR
  • Thorn PLC v Macdonald
    [1999] CPL 690
  • Mombasa Cement Limited v Kitsao & 34 others
    [2022] KECA 562 (KLR)
  • James Kanyiita Nderitu & another v Marios Philotas Ghikas & another
  • Mbogo & Another v Shah
  • Patel v E.A. Cargo Handling Services Ltd
    (1975) EA 75
  • Chemwolo & Another v Kubende
    [1986] KLR 492
  • CMC Holdings v Nzioki
    [2004] 1 KLR 173
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court, Eldoret
CMCC No. E069 of 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the ruling of the Senior Principal Magistrate (the judgment does not cite the enabling provision)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kondowa v Abyssinia Iron & Steel Limited & another (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2924 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Eldoret CMCC No. E069 of 2023 (appeal therein; Memorandum of Appeal dated 7th February, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2924/eng@2025-10-23

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