Hussein v Okello (Appeal E207 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1092 (KLR) (24 April 2026) (Judgment)

Hussein v Okello (Appeal E207 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1092 (KLR) (24 April 2026) (Judgment)

The court found that proper service was effected upon the appellant as evidenced by the Affidavit of Service, and the appellant failed to challenge the service in any material way or seek the recall of the process server. The trial court's exercise of discretion in dismissing the application to set aside the ex parte judgment was not wrong in principle or perverse on the facts.

Citation
[2026] KEELRC 1092 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Abdul Hussein; Respondent: Kesiah Alice Okello
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
24 April 2026
Case Number
Appeal E207 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Judgment, Service of Summons, Setting Aside Judgment, Court Discretion
Source Language
English
Employment Law Civil Procedure Ex Parte Judgment Service of Summons Setting Aside Judgment Court Discretion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Hussein

Appellant

Kesiah Alice Okello

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was proper service of summons upon the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application to set aside ex parte judgment
  3. 3 Whether the appellant should be granted leave to file a response out of time

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that proper service was effected upon the appellant as evidenced by the Affidavit of Service, and the appellant failed to challenge the service in any material way or seek the recall of the process server. The trial court's exercise of discretion in dismissing the application to set aside the ex parte judgment was not wrong in principle or perverse on the facts.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No orders as to costs