Okeyo v KCB Bank Kenya Limited (Cause E071 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2963 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court set aside ex parte injunction orders against a bank because serving papers on a branch manager, not head office, denied it a fair hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether service on a bank's branch manager constitutes proper service on the corporation under Rule 28 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Service on a branch manager, absent proof that he was an authorised officer, was improper; the claimant should have served at the registered office in Nairobi where policy decisions are made.
Rule 28(1) prioritises service on the Corporation Secretary, then a director, then any other authorised officer. The claimant served the Kisumu Branch Manager without ascertaining whether he was an authorised officer. With no evidence that he was duly authorised, the branch manager was not the decision-maker, and the applicant was unfairly prejudiced, remaining unaware of the suit until the documents reached its registered office on 28th July 2025.
Whether the ex parte orders of 31st July 2025 should be set aside
Yes. Improper service deprived the applicant of its constitutional right to be heard, constituting sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte orders and reinstating the application dated 24th July 2025 for inter partes hearing.
The right to be heard is non-derogable; natural justice requires that a party be made aware of proceedings against it. Service on the branch manager on 25th July 2025 did not give the applicant the reasonable time contemplated, since the four-day response period only began running on receipt at the registered office on 28th July 2025. This being a court of equity, the applicant should be heard on the application.
Legal principles established
#- Service on a body corporate must be effected on the secretary, director or another authorised officer, in that order of priority
- Service is the bedrock of the right to be heard; an unserved party is denied natural justice
- The court has discretion to vary or set aside its own orders, but the applicant must demonstrate sufficient cause
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 15th August 2025 is granted in terms of prayer Numbers 3 and 4
- 2.The court's Ruling of 31st July 2025, insofar as it granted the order of injunction, is set aside / varied
- 3.Prayer Number 3 of the Notice of Motion dated 24th July 2025 is reinstated for inter partes hearing and determination
- 4.The respondent/applicant is allowed to file its Replying Affidavit to the application dated 24th July 2025
- 5.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion of the court to review, vary or set aside its own orders, in the interest of justice
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okeyo v KCB Bank Kenya Limited (Cause E071 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2963 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 15th August 2025 (in a suit by Memorandum of Claim dated 24th July 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2963/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.