https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1466

Hemo v Westgate Shopping Mall Ltd (Cause E189 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 1466 (KLR) (15 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1466 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Cause E189 of 2026 AK Nzei, J May 15, 2026 Between Asaf Hemo Respondent and Westgate Shopping Mall Ltd Respondent Ruling Background 1.The Claimant sued the Respondent vide a Statement of Claim dated 24th February, 2026 and sought the following reliefs:-a.A declaration that the Respondent’s action of terminating the Claimant’s employment was unfair, illegal, unprocedural and unlawful.b.A declaration that the Respondent violated the Claimant’s right to fair labour practices and human dignity in terminating his (the Claimant’s) employment.c.An order for payment of all outstanding contractual dues of the Claimant, including but not limited to –i.Salary for January 2026 ……… Kshs.1,898,600/=.ii.Payment in lieu of notice (1 month) … Kshs.1,898,600/=.d.An order directing the Respondent to reimburse the Claimant the amount of Kshs.102,230.50, being expenses personally paid by the Claimant for the benefit of the Respondent’s business operations.e.An award of compensation for unfair and unlawful termination pursuant to Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act, equivalent to twelve (12) months’ gross salary (Kshs.1,891,509 x 12 months = Kshs.22,698,108/=).f.An award of aggravated and constitutional damages for the violation of the Claimant’s right to fair labour practices, human dignity and fair administrative action guaranteed under Articles 41, 28 and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, quantified at the equivalent of three (3) months’ gross salary (Kshs.1,891,309 x 3 months = Kshs.5,674,527/=).g.An order directing the Respondent to pay the Claimant his contractual bonus according to Clause 3(b) of the contract of employment, which is 10% of the Profit Before Tax for the relevant period, and, in the alternative, an order requiring the Respondent to give the Claimant full access to its audited accounts, books and financial records for the relevant period to calculate and verify the bonus due.h.A declaration that Clauses 29 and 30 of the Employment Contract dated 1st July, 2024 are illegal, unenforceable, unreasonable, oppressive and constitute an unlawful restraint of trade.i.An order of permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from enforcing, invoking, or relying upon Clauses 29 and 30 of the contract of employment dated 1st July, 2024, or otherwise preventing the Claimant from securing employment or engaging in gainful occupation in Nairobi County.j.An order restraining the Respondent from further use, reproduction, or dissemination of the Claimant’s personal data, image and likeness.k.An order directing the Respondent to pay the Claimant compensation of Kshs.50,000/= per day for each day of continued unauthorized use of the Claimant’s image, likeness, personal data and identity from the date of termination of employment until such use ceases.l.An order directing the Respondent to issue the Claimant with a Certificate of Service.m.Interest on all amounts awarded at the current commercial rates from the date they became due until the day they are paid in full.n.An order requiring the Respondent to issue a formal written acknowledgment and a public apology to the Claimant for the unlawful termination and humiliation endured, to be published across all social media accounts managed by the Respondent.o.Costs.p.Any further relief as the Court may deem just or proper in the circumstances. 2.Briefly, the Claimant pleaded:-a.that he was employed by the Respondent under a written contract of employment dated 1st July, 2024 in the position of Restaurant General Manager, and that he performed his duties faithfully and diligently; and that he contributed significant value to the operations, service quality and profitability of the Respondent’s enterprise, which includes seven (7) restaurants located in Westgate Mall, Westlands, Nairobi.b.that notwithstanding the Claimant’s exemplary service, the Respondent abruptly and unlawfully terminated the Claimant’s employment vide a letter dated 27th January, 2026. That the termination letter was subsequently followed by and/or reinforced by another letter dated 10th February, 2026.c.that the termination was unlawful, unfair, lacked proper procedure, constituted a fundamental breach of the employment contract, and Kenyan employment laws; and amounted to a violation of the Claimant’s constitutional rights to fair labour practices and human dignity as protected under Articles 41 and 28 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.d.that the Respondent abruptly terminated the Claimant’s employment without providing the required one (1) month written notice or paying one (1) month salary in lieu of notice, as explicitly mandated by Clause 18 of the Contract of Employment; without lawful justification, without good faith and without fidelity as implied under the Contract of Employment; and failed to pay the Claimant’s earned salary for January 2026 in violation of Clause 3 of the Employment Contract.e.that the subject contract of employment contains illegal and oppressive clauses including:-i.Clauses 29 and 30 which aim to impose non-solicitation and non-competition restrictions. That Clause 29 prohibits the Claimant from soliciting or doing business with any customers, clients or employees of the Respondent for twelve (12) months after termination; while Clause 30 is a non-compete clause prohibiting the Claimant from engaging in any business, activity or employment that is similar to or competes with the Respondent’s business within Nairobi County for twelve (12) months following termination.ii.that the said restrictive clauses violate the right to fair labour practices granted under Article 41 of the Constitution and are excessive, unreasonable and oppressive; and breach the principles of contracting as:-i.the twelve (12 months duration is unjustified and lacks any contractual or legitimate business reason provided by the Respondent.ii.the geographic restriction limited to Nairobi County is too broad, and seems intended to frustrate the Claimant without any valid cause.f.that the scope of restrictions prevent the Claimant from working in his only known profession as a chef, taking away his means of earning a living; and is unlawful and harms the public interest by depriving the community of an important skill.g.that as a direct and foreseeable result of the Respondent’s termination of the Claimant’s employment, the Claimant suffered significant damage, both financial and non-financial, as the Claimant did not receive his January 2026 salary totalling Kshs.1,898,600/=, and a refund of Kshs.102,230.50 being funds paid by the Claimant for the benefit of the Respondent. 3.The suit was filed contemporaneously with an urgent Notice of Motion dated 24th February, 2024, which is the application now before me for determination. The Application dated 24th February, 2024 4.The Claimant/Applicant seeks the following Orders at this stage:-a.Spent.b.Spent.c.That pending the hearing and determination of the main claim herein, the Court be pleased to issue a temporary injunction restraining the Respondent, whether by itself, its directors, officers, agents, or advocates from enforcing, invoking, relying upon, threatening to enforce or in any manner acting upon Clauses 29 and 30 of the Claimant’s contract of employment dated 1st July, 2024.d.That the Court be pleased to grant such further orders as it may deem just and expedient in the circumstances.e.That costs of the application be in the cause. 5.The application sets out on its face the grounds on which it is brought, and is based on the Claimant/Applicant’s supporting affidavit sworn on 24th February, 2026, which substantially re-states the averments contained in the Statement of Claim substantially reproduced in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Ruling. 6.It is particularly deponed in the supporting affidavit:-a.that the Respondent has expressly asserted and relied upon the said restrictive clauses, and has demonstrated its intention and willingness to enforce them; and that the Claimant believes that the Respondent plans to use the said illegal clauses to stop him from obtaining alternative employment in the Claimant’s professional field.b.that Clauses 29 and 30 in the Claimant’s employment contract dated 1st July, 2024 (restrictive clauses) are excessively broad, unreasonable and oppressive, breaching principles of fair contracting by prohibiting the Claimant from practising his profession for twelve (12) months, cover the entire Nairobi County which is the principal hospitality and employment market in Kenya. That the Clauses prevent the Claimant from making a living within his professional expertise and specialization.c.that enforcing the said illegal restrictive Clauses would in practical effect deprive the Claimant of the ability to earn a livelihood in Nairobi County, which is the only city where he resides and where his children are enrolled and attending school.d.that the Claimant/Applicant is a foreign national of Israeli Origin; lawfully residing and working in Nairobi-Kenya.e.that the Claimant is a trained hospitality professional and chef with over ten (10) years of professional experience; and was employed by the Respondent as a Restaurant General Manager under a written contract of employment dated 1st July, 2024.f.that vide a letter dated 27th January, 2026, the Claimant’s employment was abruptly terminated by the Respondent without any warnings, disciplinary proceedings and lawful justification.g.that the Respondent issued notices confirming that the Claimant had ceased employment with the Respondent.h.that upon termination, the Claimant ceased earning income and became reliant on finding alternative employment within his professional field.i.that relocating outside Nairobi is not a viable option as the Claimant lacks an established livelihood or support system elsewhere in Kenya.j.that being a foreign national whose legal residence is depended on lawful employment, enforcement of the said restrictive clauses would expose the Claimant/Applicant to serious immigration and residency consequences.k.that damages alone would not adequately compensate the Claimant for the harm he stands to suffer, as his professional career, livelihood and immigration stability are at risk.l.that the Claimant has a strong prima facie case with a high likelihood of success, as the restrictive clauses are unreasonable, excessive and unenforceable in law; and that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favours granting of the Orders sought. 7.Documents annexed to the Claimant’s said supporting affidavit include copies of the Claimant’s contract of employment dated 1st July, 2024, a circular to suppliers dated 27th January, 2026 informing them of cessation of the Claimant’s employment with the Respondent, the Respondent’s letter to the Claimant dated 10th February, 2026 asserting reliance on the restrictive clauses, a letter by Durham International School where the Claimant’s children are enrolled (dated 3rd May, 2024), and a letter of termination of employment dated 27th January, 2026, among other documents. 8.The application is opposed by the Respondent vide a replying affidavit of Alex Trachtenberg sworn on 6th March, 2026 and a further affidavit of the same deponent sworn on 13th March, 2026, denying each and every averment made by the Claimant. It is deponed in the said affidavits, inter-alia:-a.that being an Israeli National and holder of an Israeli Passport, the Claimant’s employment in Kenya is subject to Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act and Legal Notice No. 64 of 2012; and that the Respondent applied and paid for the Claimant’s work permit, which was issued for a period of 2 years beginning 12th June, 2024.b.that the Claimant was engaged by the Respondent as a Restaurants General Manager under a Contract of Employment dated 1st July, 2024.c.that the Respondent issued a notice of termination of employment on 27th January, 2026 pursuant to Clause 18 of the contract, which permits bilateral termination of the employment relationship by either party upon issuance of the requisite notice or payment of one month’s salary in lieu thereof.d.that the Claimant contested the termination, and that through its Counsel, the Respondent revoked the termination (vide a letter dated 16th February, 2026) and advised the Claimant to resume his duties pursuant to the Contract of Employment’s Terms and Conditions.e.that the Respondent further withdrew the notification to the Director of Immigration Services, and that as such the Applicant continues to be lawfully present in Kenya by virtue of the work permit procured and paid for by the Respondent.f.that the Applicant has neither reported to his duty station nor tendered a formal resignation, and consequently remains an active employee within the Respondent’s personal records.g.that the Applicant is the General Manager of the Restaurants owned by the Respondent, and is the primary official responsible for all the operations and management of the staff, and therefore the primary custodian of the Respondent’s proprietary culinary formulas and specialised recipes, with a unique operational model and core component of the Respondent’s market competitiveness; constituting a protectable proprietary interest within the Respondent’s Hospitality business.h.that in the discharge of his duties, the Applicant not only managed the staff, but assisted in hiring most if not all staff; including Mr. Dennis Ndungu Githinji in the capacity of Assistant Head Chef and Mrs. Susan Wakuthii Gichobi as the Kitchen Manager.i.that on 16th February, 2026, coincident with the Respondent’s revocation of the Applicant’s termination, Mrs. Susan Wakuthii Gichobi, a top valuable member of the Respondent’s staff serving under the Applicant’s direct supervision, tendered her resignation via an email of the same date.j.that on 28th February, 2026, Mr. Dennis Ndungu Githinji, another top valuable employee under the Applicant’s supervision, tendered his resignation from the Respondent’s service via email.k.that following the contemporaneous resignation of the said two employees of the Respondent, the Applicant’s Advocates on record on 4th March, 2026 served the Respondent with a Further List of Witnesses containing the testimonies of the 2 employees in support of the Applicant’s main suit.l.that there is a grave and present danger of more of the Respondent’s employees following the same pattern, institutional knowledge and rights breached; and it is for that reason that both parties agreed to Clauses 29 (non-solicitation) and 30 (non-competition) of the Contract of Employment (Impugned clauses). That the impugned clauses are not restrictive, unfair or unreasonable; but are part of the mutually agreed terms of the contract. 9.Documents annexed to the Respondent’s said replying affidavits include copies of the Applicant’s Work Permit generated on 12th June, 2024 and proof of payment thereon, the contract of employment dated 1st July, 2024, termination letter dated 27th January, 2026, the Respondent’s Advocates’ letter dated 16th February, 2026 and immigration notice (of) withdrawal dated 25th February, 2026, among other documents. 10.For record purposes, the main suit herein is defended by the Respondent vide a Memorandum of Reply dated 25th March, 2026 and filed herein. 11.Having perused the pleadings herein, and having considered the application, the affidavit sworn in support and those sworn in opposition of the application, the sole issue that falls for determination is whether the injunctive order sought by the Claimant/Applicant is merited. 12.The Impugned Clauses of the Claimant’s contract of employment dated 1st July, 2024 state as follows:-“29.Non-SolicitationThe Employee covenants with the company that he will not for the period of twelve (12) months immediately following the termination of his employment under this Agreement [without the prior written consent of the company] in connection with the carrying on of any business in competition with the business of the company in respect to a Restaurant and recreational and Sports activities on his own behalf or on behalf of any person, firm or company directly or indirectly:-29.1seeking to procure orders from or do business with any person, firm or company who has at any time during the twelve (12) months immediately preceding such termination done business with or been a customer, member or client of the company and with whom the Employee has had dealings with; or29.2endeavour to entice away from the company any employee who has at any time during the twelve (12) months immediately preceding such termination been employed or engaged by the company and with whom the Employee has worked at any time during the twelve (12) months immediately preceding termination.Provided that nothing in this Clause shall prohibit the seeking or procuring orders or the doing of business not relating or similar to the business or businesses described above.” 13.Clause 30 of the said Contract provides as follows:-“30.Non-CompetitionThe Employee covenants with the company that he will not within Nairobi County and for the period of twelve (12) months immediately following the termination of his employment under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the company either alone or jointly with or as manager, agent, consultant or employee of any person, firm, or company directly or indirectly carry on or be engaged in any activity or business of the company in respect to a Restaurant and recreational and Sports activities which shall be in competition with the business of and with which the Employee was involved during his employment with the company”. 14.The foregoing clauses of the Claimant’s contract of employment with the Respondent are what is commonly referred to as non-compete contractual clauses or covenant not to compete. In relation to employment contracts, they are covenants not to engage in the same business as the employer for a stated period of time; particularly after leaving employment. Such covenants extending beyond an employment relationship, also referred to as restraints of trade, must be reasonable in scope, time and territory. Non-compete contractual clauses are not expressly provided for or regulated under Sections 9 and 10 of the Employment Act 2007. They are governed by Common Law Principles and The Contracts in Restraint of Trade Act (Cap. 24) Laws of Kenya. 15.Section 2 of the aforesaid Act provides as follows:-“2.Any agreement or contract which contains a provision or covenant whereby a party thereto is restrained from exercising any lawful profession, trade, business or occupation shall not be void only on the ground that the provision or covenant is therein contained:Provided that –i.the High Court shall have power to declare the provision or covenant to be void where the Court is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the profession, trade, business or occupation concerned and the period of time and the area within which it is expressed to apply, and to all the circumstances of the case, the provision or covenant is not reasonable either in the interest of the parties, in as much as it affords more than adequate protection to the party in whose favour it is imposed against something against which he is entitled to be protected, or in the interest of the public, in as much as the provision or covenant is injurious to the public interest.ii.. . .” 16.Section 3 of the aforesaid Act provides as follows:-“(3)Notwithstanding and in addition to anything contained in Section 2, any such provision or covenant shall be void in any case where an employer terminates the services of an employee in contravention of the terms of the contract of service”. 17.The term “High Court” as used in the foregoing statutory provision, in the context of this case, refers to this Court as well, by virtue of Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, which gives this specialized Superior Court the status of the High Court. 18.Jurisprudence on restraint of trade in employment contracts can be traced back to the Court’s decision in the English case of Mitchel – vs – Reynolds (1711), whereby the Court distinguished between restraints general and restraints particular, and categorically stated that general restraints are all void. The Court went further to state that where particular restraints are with consideration, so as to make it a proper and useful contract, then it is good. The Court, however, pointed out that even in such cases where particular restraint covenants are voluntary, the mischief which may arise to a party is loss of livelihood, subsistence of his family; and to the public, depriving it of a useful member. 19.The Court (in the Mitchel Case – Supra) further stated that all contracts, where there is a bare restraint and no more, must be void. 20.In Kenya, Courts have consistently held that restrictive covenants cannot be used merely to prevent competition, but rather to protect a proprietary interest such as confidential information, trade secrets and customer connections. 21.Further, the restriction must be reasonable in duration, geographical scope and the specific nature of activities prohibited. A non-compete clause that is broad, oppressive or prevents an employee from earning a livelihood will be declared void for being contrary to public interest and public policy. 22.The burden of proving reasonableness of a restraint clause/non-compete covenant always lies on the employer. Where the employer fails to demonstrate a particular legitimate proprietary interest deserving protection, the non-compete clause will not be upheld. 23.In the present case, Clause 30 of the Claimant’s employment contract is clear on the fact that the Respondent’s business is one of Restaurants, recreational, and sports activities, that the restricted geographical scope is Nairobi County, and that the period of restriction is twelve (12) months from the date of termination. 24.The restrictive clauses (Clauses 29 and 30) do not demonstrate any particular proprietary rights and/or particular business secrets, or particular existing customer and/or clientele that ought to be protected. Further, the restrictive covenants do not state and/or demonstrate any particular and/or specific attributes and/or characteristics attributable to the Respondent’s Restaurants/business that are not attributable to other Restaurants/similar businesses in Nairobi County. The other stated activities of the Respondent’s enterprise/business; recreational and sports activities, are general activities. The restrictive clauses are general in nature. The nature of the said clauses can only be deduced from the clauses themselves as spelt out in the Claimant’s employment contract, but not from pleadings and/or affidavits in Court proceedings founded on the Clauses. 25.In the case of Direct Pay Limited – vs – Sharon Tum [2024] KEHC 2114 (KLR), the Court stated as follows:-“61.I have perused the award and I find that the allegations are far-fetched since the question the arbitrator was called to determine was whether the respondent in the course of her employment had access to and gained knowledge of certain proprietary business information belonging to the applicant.62.The Arbitrator found that the right to work is a constitutional right by virtue of the International Labour Organization Treaty; to which Kenya is a party. As such, the applicant’s action in seeking to restrict the Respondent’s engagement to employment are not only unconstitutional, but also unreasonable and unenforceable. . . .” 26.In Mwaura – vs – Taxify Kenya Limited [2023] KEELRC 1849 (KLR), the Court stated as follows:-“31.A decision by an employer to terminate a contract of service that contains a non-compete clause automatically renders the non-compete clause inoperative if the employer’s decision is declared irregular. This is apparent from Section 3 of the aforesaid Act. Consequently, an employer who is found to have unfairly terminated an employee’s employment automatically loses the right to enforce a non-compete clause against such employee.32.The general trend has been for Courts to avoid giving effect to non-compete clauses in contracts unless the clauses serve greater public good and are not inimical to the interests of the parties and justice generally. In LG Electronics Africa Logistics FZE – vs – Charles Kamari [2012] eKLR, the Court, quoting the decision in the case of Esso Petroleum – vs – Harpers Garage [1967] ALL ER stated that Courts will not enforce a non-compete agreement which goes further than affording adequate protection to the legitimate interest of a person in whose favour it is granted”. 27.The restrictive (non-compete) clauses in the Claimant’s employment contract are too general and too wide in geographical scope (Nairobi County) to be upheld and/or enforced by the Court. 28.The Claimant has challenged the legality and fairness of his termination, and pleads breach of his contract of employment by the Respondent. I have taken note of the Respondent’s letter dated 27th January, 2026 terminating the Claimant’s employment with effect from the date of the letter. The said letter states in part:-“Your employment contract dated 01st July, 2024 refers.We wish to inform you that with effect from today 27th January, 2026, your services as a Restaurant General Manager with the company have been terminated in accordance with Clause 5 of your said employment contract . . .. . . Kindly also note that the company will apply for cancellation of your work permit after 30 days from the date hereof.” 29.Clause 5 of the Claimant’s contract of employment states as follows:-“5.Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement, if your work permit is not renewed (pursuant to the requirements of the Kenya Citizenship Immigration Act 2011 or such other applicable statute) your employment services hereunder will automatically terminate without notice of termination and thereupon you shall not have any actions claims and/or demands whatsoever arising from this Agreement and/or your said termination or at all. No compensation whatsoever is payable on termination”. 30.It is to be noted, from the aforesaid termination letter itself, that the Claimant’s Work Permit was still valid and running as at the time of termination of his employment on 27th January, 2026; hence the Respondent’s statement in the letter that it would “apply for cancellation of your work permit after 30 days from the date hereof”. 31.The termination was thus in breach of the Claimant’s contract of employment and was not based on any valid reason as contemplated in Sections 43(1) and 45(2)(a) of the Employment Act. It was both wrongful, illegal and unfair. 32.Clause 18 of the Claimant’s employment contract states as follows:-“18.This Agreement may be terminated by either party giving one (1) month written notice to the other or paying the equivalent of one (1) month salary in lieu of notice”. 33.The Claimant’s contract of employment is not shown to have been terminated in accordance with the foregoing clause. It is to be noted that even where such termination clause exists, the clause cannot be invoked without a valid reason, and even then, the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard. 34.The Respondent has not established the legality of the alleged revocation of the termination of the Claimant’s employment. 35.In view of the foregoing contractual breaches and apparent illegalities on the part of the Respondent, the restrictive/non-compete clauses in the Claimant’s contract of employment are voidable pursuant to Section 3 of The Contracts In Restraint of Trade Act (Cap 24) Laws of Kenya. 36.The Claimant/Applicant, who seeks an injunctive order, has established a prima facie case against the Respondent, with a probability of success. He stands to suffer irreparably if the order sought is not granted as he will not be able to secure alternative employment in Nairobi County, which is Kenya’s top commercial city, and where he and his family have established residence. It is a common ground that the Claimant/Applicant is a foreign national, an Israeli. The Claimant has demonstrated that his young children go to school in Nairobi. 37.As already stated elsewhere in this Ruling, one of the documents annexed to the replying affidavit sworn on behalf of the Respondent is a copy of the Claimant’s work permit. The work permit’s expiry date is indicated as 13th June, 2026. The said work permit had been issued on the Respondent’s application in accordance with the provisions of Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act. Failure by the Claimant to secure alternative employment and therefore a Valid Work Permit may jeopardise his and his family’s legal status to remain in and to work in Kenya, and deportation may be a legal consequence. The Claimant thus stands to suffer irreparable damage that cannot be compensated by an award of damages. The scale of convenience tilts in his favour, in view of all the foregoing. 38.The Claimant/Applicant’s case thus passes the test set by the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa in the case of Giella – vs – Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] 1 EA 358, where the Court stated, inter alia:-a.that an applicant for an order of interlocutory injunction must show a prima facie case with a probability of success.b.that an injunction will not normally be granted unless the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury.c.that when the Court is in doubt, it will decide the application on the balance of convenience.d.that contracts in restraint of trade are generally invalid, but a partial restraint in a contract of employment may be valid if it is reasonable in the interest of both parties.e.that an employer is not entitled to protection against competition. 39.As already stated in this Ruling, the Respondent terminated the Claimant’s employment in breach of the terms of the contract of employment dated 1st July, 2024 and signed by both parties herein. Section 3 of The Contracts in Restraint of Trade Act (Cap. 24) Laws of Kenya voids Clauses 29 and 30 in the said contract. I come to the unavoidable finding that the Claimant’s application dated 24th February, 2026 must succeed. 40.Consequently, and having considered written submissions filed on behalf of both parties, the said application is hereby allowed in the following terms:-a.Pending hearing and determination of the suit herein, an order of injunction is hereby issued restraining the Respondent, whether by itself, its directors, officers, servants, agents or advocates from enforcing, invoking, relying upon, threatening to enforce, or in any manner acting upon Clauses 29 and 30 of the Claimant’s contract of employment dated 1st July, 2024.b.The suit herein shall be fast-tracked, and shall be set down for hearing.c.Costs of the application shall be in the main cause. 41.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY 2026AGNES KITIKU NZEIJUDGEOrderThis Ruling has been delivered via Microsoft Teams Online Platform. A signed copy will be availed to each party upon payment of the applicable Court fees.AGNES KITIKU NZEIJUDGEAppearance:Mrs. Weke for the Claimant/ApplicantMr. Ochieng for the Respondent