Kenya County Government Workers Union v County Government of Homa Bay & 2 others; Public Service Commission & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Miscellaneous Case E118 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 968 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to cancel reinstatement orders, ruling that a party served with court papers cannot ignore them and later claim the resulting orders are invalid.
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 orders issued on 22nd January 2025 ought to be set aside ex debito justitiae
- 2.Whether the Respondents have properly filed the appeal/review application before the 1st Interested Party
- 3.Whether the execution of the orders dated 22nd January 2025 ought to be stayed
Key legal issues
#Whether the ex parte orders of 30th January 2025 should be set aside ex debito justitiae
No. Service was properly effected on 27th November 2024 as shown by the process server's return of service; the 2nd Respondent's failure to appear does not entitle it to have the orders vacated.
The court held that where a party is duly served but does not appear, the court may hear the matter ex parte and the resulting orders are valid and enforceable, no less than orders made with all parties present. Such orders can only be vitiated on sound principles demonstrated by the applicant. Here there was ample proof of service by affidavit of the process servers, service was not shown to be irregular or on the wrong parties, and permitting parties to sit out proceedings then assert nullity would mock justice.
Whether a pending review before the 1st Interested Party warrants stay of the adopted decision
Impliedly no; per section 88(4) of the Public Service Commission Act, implementation of a decision is not deferred or suspended pending appeal or review.
The Applicant/Respondent relied on section 88(4) of the Public Service Commission Act and on County Government of Mandera, which held that a decision of the Public Service Commission is not automatically stayed on account of a review filed before the commission. The review application was also attacked as an afterthought, filed on 3rd October 2024 despite being dated 15th August 2023 and served with alleged misspelling of the applicant's email address. The court dismissed the motion without granting any stay.
Legal principles established
#- Ex parte orders made after proper service on the absent party are lawful, enforceable and of full force; failure to appear does not of itself vitiate them.
- An ex parte order may be vacated ex debito justitiae only where there was manifest failure to serve or the order is illegal or null and void ab initio.
Court orders
#- 1.The 2nd Respondent/Applicant's motion dated 5th February 2025 seeking to set aside the orders of 30th January 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the motion awarded to the Applicant/Respondent, payable by the 2nd Respondent/Applicant alone, to the exclusion of the other Respondents and Interested Parties
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the court to set aside ex debito justitiae orders issued ex parte; civil procedure on setting aside ex parte orders
Relief refused
#Setting aside ex debito justitiae of the court orders of 30th January 2025 adopting the 1st Interested Party's decision (including reinstatement and payment of withheld salaries and allowances)
Service on the 2nd Respondent/Applicant was proper; ex parte orders regularly obtained are lawful, enforceable and can only be vitiated on sound principles such as manifest failure of service or illegality, none of which was demonstrated
Stay of execution of the orders based on the pending review before the 1st Interested Party
Existence of a review does not automatically stay implementation of the decision; section 88(4) of the Public Service Commission Act provides implementation shall not be deferred pending review
Costs
Motion dismissed with costs to the Applicant/Respondent; as only the 2nd Respondent/Applicant moved the Court, the 2nd Respondent alone shall meet the costs of the motion to the exclusion of the other Respondents or Interested Parties
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.
These orders are neither null nor void. They are lawful, enforceable and proper. They are no less valid than an order issued in the presence of all parties. Such an order has the full force of the law.
That can only be the case where there was manifest failure to serve, the order is illegal or null and void ab initio. To permit parties to sit out a judicial process only for them to come and assert nullity because they chose not to participate in the proceeding would be a mockery of justice.
The motion before me spectacularly fails and is dismissed with costs to the Applicant/Respondent. As only the 2nd Respondent/Applicant moved the Court, it is the 2nd Respondent who shall meet the costs of this motion to the exclusion of the other Respondents or Interested Parties. It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to both 'orders dated 30th January 2025' and 'orders dated 22nd January 2025' as the orders sought to be set aside, without reconciling the dates.
The court states only the Applicant/Respondent's submissions are on record, yet purports to determine issues including the validity of the review; the review validity issue is addressed only through the Applicant/Respondent's submissions.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya County Government Workers Union v County Government of Homa Bay & 2 others; Public Service Commission & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Miscellaneous Case E118 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 968 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 5th February 2025 (Judicial Review / adoption proceedings; ex parte orders of 30th January 2025 adopting 1st Interested Party's decision dated 1st August 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/968/eng@2025-03-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.