Njoroge v Bio Foods Products Limited (Cause E019 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2261 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to reopen an ex parte award because the employer ignored every chance to file its defence.
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 Respondent was denied a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution when judgment was entered ex parte
- 2.Whether the Respondent should be granted leave to file its response out of time and re-open the Claim for hearing
- 3.Whether the pending claim at the Chief Magistrate's Court Nakuru and the preliminary objection on jurisdiction justified staying execution and reopening the matter
Key legal issues
#Whether the ex parte hearing violated the Respondent's right to fair hearing under Article 50
No violation; the Respondent was served, obtained serial adjournments and extensions of time, yet never filed a response.
The Respondent was served with summons and Statement of Claim on 16th May 2024 but never filed a response despite two 14-day extensions. On the hearing date the Court found that the Advocate's bereavement had no relationship with the failure to file a response. The Court held that availing multiple opportunities negated any claim of denial of fair hearing.
Whether the pending Chief Magistrate's Court claim and the preliminary objection justified reopening the suit
No; the Nakuru claim had been withdrawn by notice dated 17th April 2024, and the preliminary objection was withdrawn in open court on 15th October 2024.
The Respondent relied on a parallel claim over the same subject matter and a jurisdictional objection. The Court found the CM's claim was withdrawn on 17th April 2024, and Respondent's Counsel Ms. Salim concurred in open court that the preliminary objection had been withdrawn, paving way for extensions of time to file a response that never materialised.
Whether the application warranted stay of execution, leave and reopening
The application is wholly without merit and was declined with costs to the Claimant.
None of the grounds advanced had merit. The Court balanced the Respondent's procedural defaults against the Claimant's right to access the fruits of her litigation and the constitutional demand for expeditious administration of justice, and found reopening would itself breach Article 159(2)(b).
Legal principles established
#- A party cannot claim denial of fair hearing where it was granted multiple opportunities to respond and failed to use them.
- Counsel's bereavement does not excuse a party's unexplained failure to file pleadings within granted extensions of time.
Court orders
#- 1.The application by the Respondent dated 27th May 2025 is declined.
- 2.Costs to the Claimant.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Constitution (Article 162(2) context) and Article 50/159 invoked by parties; not expressly stated
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment of 28th February 2025
Application wholly without merit; multiple opportunities to respond were availed and ignored
Leave to file response out of time and re-open the Claim
Bereavement of Counsel did not explain serial failures to file a response; reopening would violate the Claimant's right to expeditious justice
Costs
Costs to the Claimant.
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.
It is most absurd that the Respondent, would claim violation of its right to fair hearing, while multiple opportunities were availed to the Respondent by the Court to file its response.
Bereavement of Counsel, did not explain multiple failures by the Respondent, when granted serial extensions of time, to file and serve its response.
Reopening the hearing would itself violate the Claimant’s right to a fair and expeditious administration of justice, under Article 159 [2] [b] of the Constitution.
The application by the Respondent dated 27th May 2025 is declined.
Costs to the Claimant.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case title or case number of the cause or the application.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njoroge v Bio Foods Products Limited (Cause E019 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2261 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2261/eng@2025-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.