Nduta v Kagwanja t/a Hotel Patron & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E072 of 2021) [2026] KEMC 189 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 189 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE NAKURU LAW COURTS EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS CAUSE E072 OF 2021 PA NDEGE, SPM JUNE 25, 2026 BETWEEN SERAH NDUTA ........................................................................................ CLAIMANT AND GEOFFREY KAGWANJA T/A HOTEL PATRON ........................... RESPONDENT AND DIVINAH NYABOKE AMBROSE ............................................................ OBJECTOR AND GILLETTE TRADERS AUCTIONEERS ............................... INTERESTED PARTY RULING 1. 2. Before me are objection proceedings filed by the objector herein through an application dated 26/08/2024 seeking inter alia, the following orders: a. That the honorable court be pleased to declare that the objector is the lawful owner of the goods attached by the interested parry herein. b. That the honorable court be pleased to declare that the attachment of the objector’s goods by the interested party on 19/08/2024 was unlawful, unprocedural, null and void ab initio. c. That costs of the application be borne by the claimant/ decree holder. The application is based on the grounds on the face of its and the annexed afidavit of the objector. There was a replying afidavit sworn by one Serah Nduta Ndungu which has however not been signed by the deponent. She is the claimant herein and though the issue was not raised by either party; this court has a duty in principal to scrutinize the applicants and the response therein and to disallow any evidence unproceduraly or irregularly adduced. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/189/eng@2026-06-25 1
page 1 of 2
3. The issue herein is therefore whether the unsigned afidavit sworn by the claimant herein has a legal basis? The filed supporting afidavit by Serah Nduta Ndungu before this court is clearly dated 27/11/2024 but not signed by the deponent. The courts have pronounced itself severally that any afidavit that is not signed or commissioned is fatally defective for contravening all the legal requirements for making an afidavit. In case of Gideon Sitelu Konchella versus Julius Lekakeny Ole Sunkuli & 2 Others [2018] eKLR, the Supreme Court was faced with similar scenario. The court was categorical that such an afidavit had no legal value in the case before the court. It concluded that the matter before it would be considered as if there was no replying afidavit. 4. Guided by this decision of the Supreme Court, this court is bound to respect the decision of the higher courts. On this note I find that the replying afidavit of Srah Nduta Ndungu does not qualify to be an afidavit because it fails to comply with section 4 and 5 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act. I therefore struck it out as if it was not filed. This leaves the objector’s application and its supporting afidavit as unopposed and having gone through the evidence therein and the orders sought, I do find merit in it and do hereby grant the same as prayed with costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026. ALOYCE-PETER-NDEGE SENIOR PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE In the presence of; Claimant’s counsel: Osodo h/b Esuchi. Objector’s Counsel: N/A. Claimant: N/A. Objector: N/A. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/189/eng@2026-06-25 2
page 2 of 2