Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment (ELRC at Nyeri)

Gikundi v Kenya National Chamber of Commerce and Industry & 2 others (Cause E013 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1422 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
16 May 2025
1,064 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court set aside an employment judgment won without proper service, proving that flawed procedure can undo even a decided case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri (Onesmus N Makau, Judge) determines two applications dated 14th June 2024 arising from a formal proof judgment delivered on 16th June 2023 in an employment dispute. The claimant sued the 1st respondent (his former employer) and the 2nd respondent (its chairman) after his employment was terminated; neither entered appearance, and judgment was entered after formal proof on the strength of an affidavit of service sworn by Vivian Aketch Advocate on 19th May 2021. In execution, Bealine Kenya Auctioneers proclaimed a motor vehicle and assorted movable assets belonging to the objectors, Grace Wambura Ngunjiri and Mwalimu Utensils Stores and General Supplies, prompting objection proceedings. The 2nd respondent sought stay of execution, examination of the advocate on her affidavit, and setting aside of the judgment, deposing that he was never served. The court distinguished regular from irregular judgments, applying Yoashin Engineering Corporation v Aria Architects Ltd. Because the advocate filed no affidavit to rebut the denial of service, the court inferred that no service was effected, found a procedural defect, and held the judgment irregular. Irregular judgments must be set aside regardless of the merits of any defence. The court set aside the judgment and all proceedings, reopened the suit, granted the respondents 14 days to file a response, gave the claimant 7 days to reply if need be, rendered the objection proceedings otiose for want of a decree, and awarded the claimant throwaway costs of Kshs.10,000 payable within 21 days with liberty to execute in default. The ownership of the attached goods was not determined.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the impugned judgment was irregular and should be set aside
  2. 2.Whether the attached goods belong to the objectors
  3. 3.What are the appropriate orders for the court to grant in the circumstances of the case

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the judgment of 16th June 2023 was irregular

Holding

Yes - service was never effected on the 2nd respondent, making the judgment irregular

Reasoning

The 2nd respondent denied being served by Vivian Aketch Advocate, whose affidavit of service was the basis of the formal proof judgment. The advocate filed no affidavit to contest the denial. The court drew the inference that no service occurred, found a procedural defect, and classified the judgment as irregular rather than regular, requiring setting aside without inquiry into any defence.

p. 3
02

Whether the objection proceedings could survive the setting aside

Holding

They became otiose because the decree they attacked no longer exists

Reasoning

Once the underlying judgment and decree were set aside and the suit reopened, there was no decree capable of supporting execution. The objectors' motion to raise the proclamation of attachment was therefore overtaken by events and no findings were made on ownership of the attached goods.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An irregular judgment - one entered where the defendant was not served with pleadings and summons - must be set aside whether or not the defendant has a defence
  • Where a denial of service by the serving advocate is not rebutted by the advocate's affidavit, the court infers that no service was effected

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The judgment of this court delivered on 16th June, 2023 is hereby set aside together with all the proceedings in the case
  2. 2.The suit is re-opened and the respondents granted leave to file and serve response to the statement of claim within 14 days of the Ruling
  3. 3.The objection proceedings are overtaken by events as there is no decree upon which the attachment can be based
  4. 4.The claimant has 7 days to file a reply to the Response if need be
  5. 5.The claimant is awarded throwaway costs of Kshs.10,000 to be paid within 21 days, failing which he may execute

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC Procedure Rules referenced); not stated in the judgment

Relief refused

#

Order for examination of Vivian Loice Aketch as to the truthfulness of her affidavit of service

Rendered moot by setting aside of the judgment

Objectors' application for raising of the proclamation of attachment

Objection proceedings rendered otiose once the decree was set aside

p. 3

Costs

Throwaway costs of Kshs.10,000 awarded to the claimant, payable within 21 days, with liberty to execute in default; other costs in the cause as sought

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.

an irregular judgment must be set aside whether the defendant has a defence or not. All what the defendant needs to satisfy the court is that the judgment was irregular
p. 3Irregular judgments
A regular judgment is one where a defendant was properly served with pleadings and summons to enter appearance but failed to enter appearance. In such circumstances, the court has wide discretion to set aside the judgment upon terms that are just.
p. 3Regular judgments and discretion to set aside
The judgment of this court delivered on 16th June, 2023 is hereby set aside together with all the proceedings in the case.
p. 3Final orders
The suit is hereby re-opened and the respondents granted leave to file and serve response to the statement of claim within 14 days of this Ruling.
p. 3Final orders
The claimant is awarded throwaway costs of Kshs.10,000 to be paid within 21 days of this ruling and in default he will be at liberty to execute.
p. 3Final orders - costs

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gikundi v Kenya National Chamber of Commerce and Industry & 2 others (Cause E013 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1422 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (ELRC at Nyeri). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1422/eng@2025-05-16

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