https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1560

Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Dhabiti Sacco Society (Cause E038 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 1560 (KLR) (4 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1560 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Meru Cause E038 of 2024 SC Rutto, J June 4, 2026 Between Kenya Union of Commercial Food And Allied Workers Claimant and Dhabiti Sacco Society Respondent Ruling 1.The Respondent/Applicant has brought the present application by way of a Notice of Motion dated 13th November 2025, seeking the following orders:1.That the purported decree dated 21st July 2025, together with all consequent steps- including the claimant’s letter and application for Warrants of Attachment and Sale dated 11th November 2025- be set aside, vacated, annulled and expunged from the record for having been issued without any valid judgment, and therefore being nullity ab initio.2.That this Honourable Court be pleased to make a finding and declare that no lawful judgment has ever been delivered, typed, signed, sealed, issued or certified in this cause, and therefore the purported decree is incurably defective and void for all purposes.3.That all execution proceedings, warrants, attachments, distress measures and enforcement steps founded on the said irregular decree be forthwith stayed, declared void and permanently vacated.4.That this Honourable Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, do issue such further or other orders as may be necessary to uphold the integrity of its record, prevent abuse of judicial process, and guarantee the proper administration of justice.5.That costs of this Application be borne by the Claimant/Respondent. 2.The Notice of Motion is premised on the grounds appearing on its face and is supported by an affidavit sworn on 13th November 2025 by Vivian Auma, the Respondent/Applicant’s Human Resource Manager. 3.Ms. Auma deposes that on 30th October 2025, she was served with a document purporting to be a decree dated 21st July 2025 together with a forwarding letter. 4.She contends that the said decree was served without any accompanying judgment, and that inquiries at the Court Registry confirmed that no judgment has ever been delivered, typed, signed, issued, or certified in this matter. 5.Ms. Auma further asserts that a decree cannot validly or procedurally issue in the absence of an authentic judgment, and that the purported decree is therefore irregular, invalid, and contrary to the law. 6.She states that on 5th August 2025, the Claimant wrote to the Court seeking amendment of the decree, which, in her view, amounts to an admission that the decree was defective and irregular. She contends that despite this, the Claimant proceeded to serve the impugned decree on 30th October 2025 and to rely on it as a basis for execution. 7.Ms. Auma further avers that on the same day, her advocates on record wrote requesting a copy of the judgment, and that on 31st October 2025, she applied to the Deputy Registrar for typed and certified proceedings, none of which have been supplied to date. 8.She further states that on 11th November 2025, the Claimant applied for warrants of attachment and sale notwithstanding the absence of any judgment on record. 9.In Ms. Auma’s view, the decree was procured through an irregular, unlawful, and improper process, in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules. 10.She avers that unless this Court intervenes urgently, she stands to suffer imminent, unlawful, and irreparable prejudice through execution based on a decree that is a nullity ab initio. 11.In response to the Notice of Motion, the Claimant filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 20th November 2025 by Andrew Kinyua M’Mukiri, its Acting General Secretary. 12.Mr. M’Mukiri deposes that the claim arose from the Respondent’s failure to pay terminal benefits to Ncekei Abel Mugathia, Joseph Kaberia Munoru, Francis K. Aruuyaru, Doris Kathure, and Isaac Mururia upon their retirement. 13.He avers that on 4th March 2025, the matter came up for mention and the parties confirmed compliance, whereupon the matter was fixed for hearing on 6th May 2025. 14.Mr. M’Mukiri further avers that on 6th May 2025, both parties appeared before the Court, with Miss Macharia representing the Claimant and Mr. Asule appearing for the Applicant. 15.According to Mr. M’Mukiri, the Claimant was ready to proceed with the hearing with six (6) witnesses present. However, Mr. Asule informed the Court that the Applicant was not ready to proceed and requested that the matter be disposed of by way of written submissions, a position which the Claimant accepted. 16.The matter was thereafter fixed for mention on 2nd July 2025 to confirm the filing of submissions. He avers that the Claimant filed and served its submissions on 21st May 2025, but the Applicant failed to file any submissions. 17.Mr. M’Mukiri states that on 2nd July 2025, the matter was mentioned and the Claimant confirmed filing submissions, while Mr. Asule for the Applicant indicated that they had not filed submissions as they had admitted the claim as prayed, save for the issue of mode of payment. 18.He avers that, following the Applicant’s admission of the claim, the Court delivered its final orders the same day, and the file was marked as closed. 19.Mr. M’Mukiri contends that, given the admission by the Applicant and the absence of contested issues, there was no basis for a typed judgment and that the Court’s duty was limited to issuing final orders. 20.He further states that upon delivery of the final orders, counsel for the Applicant sought a 30-day stay of execution, which the Court granted. On the same date, 2nd July 2025, the Claimant requested a copy of the Court’s final orders and made payment for the same. 21.Mr. M’Mukiri avers that on 23rd July 2025, the Court issued a decree which, in his view, contained several errors, including formatting issues and omission of certain orders such as interest. 22.He further states that on 29th July 2025, counsel for the Applicant wrote to the Claimant proposing settlement of the decretal sum in four (4) years, which proposal was rejected as the earlier conciliation discussions had proposed payment over three (3) years, a position the Claimant found unacceptable given that some grievants left employment in 2022 and 2023. He contends that a longer repayment period would not have served justice. 23.Mr. M’Mukiri avers that the Claimant’s representative pursued the issue regarding the erroneous decree with the Meru Registry, including physical visits, but was consistently informed that the decree was in order and that the Claimant should be satisfied with it as issued. 24.He states that the Claimant subsequently served the decree upon the Applicant on 30th October 2025. 25.Mr. M’Mukiri further avers that the Applicant thereafter demanded a signed judgment, despite having been present in Court when the final orders were delivered following its admission of liability. 26.He states that upon expiry of seven (7) days from service of the decree, the Claimant instructed Bemac Auctioneers to proceed with execution through attachment in satisfaction of the decretal sum. 27.Mr. M’Mukiri contends that, as a party to the proceedings, the Applicant was at liberty to obtain the Court’s final orders, and there is no evidence that it made any request for the same between 2nd July 2025 and 30th October 2025 when the decree was served. 28.In his view, the Applicant’s conduct, including earlier engagement on a payment plan, is now dishonest and intended to mislead the Court. Submissions 29.The Application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Court has duly considered the parties’ respective submissions. Analysis and Determination 30.To my mind, the sole issue for determination is whether there exists a valid decree of the Court and whether the execution process initiated pursuant thereto is lawful. 31.The Applicant’s principal contention is that a decree was extracted, issued, and acted upon in the absence of a written, typed, dated, signed, and certified judgment of the Court, contrary to Order 21 Rules 1, 3, 7, and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Applicant has consistently maintained that there is no judgment on record capable of supporting the decree or sustaining execution. 32.On the other hand, the Claimant contends that the Applicant admitted the claim as prayed, and that the Court therefore had no basis to issue a typed judgment. 33.The record bears that on 2nd July 2025, when the matter came up for mention, Mr. Asule, appearing for the Applicant on behalf of Ms. Kwamboka, informed the Court that the entire claim as computed was admitted, save for statutory deductions, and indicated that the Applicant proposed to settle the sum in quarterly instalments. 34.Consequently, the Court observed that, from the pleadings of the parties, the Respondent had admitted the Claimant’s claim in full. Accordingly, the Court proceeded to enter judgment as prayed, awarded interest from the date of filing suit until payment in full, and ordered that each party bear its own costs. The Court then marked the matter as finalised, with liberty to the Respondent to apply for payment by instalments. 35.Order 13 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, makes provision for judgment on admission in the following terms:“Any party may at any stage of a suit, where admission of facts has been made, either on the pleadings or otherwise, apply to the court for such judgment or order as upon such admissions he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties; and the court may upon such application make such order, or give such judgment, as the court may think just.” 36.Fundamentally, under Order 13 Rule 2, the Court is empowered to enter judgment where an admission is clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal, and does not require further evidence or extensive interpretation. 37.It was pursuant to the foregoing provision that this Court entered judgment against the Applicant. 38.In view of the foregoing, the Applicant’s position that there is no judgment on record is difficult to comprehend, particularly given that its representative (Mr. Asule) was present in Court when judgment was entered on the basis of the Applicant’s pleadings and the submissions of its counsel, Mr. Asule. 39.Indeed, following the Court’s pronouncement, Mr. Asule applied for a stay of execution for 30 days, which application was granted. 40.In the circumstances, it is difficult to reconcile the Applicant’s request for stay of execution with its present assertion that there is no judgment on record. Against what, then, was the Applicant seeking a stay of execution? 41.If the Applicant was aggrieved by the entry of judgment on admission, the proper recourse would have been to apply for setting aside of the decision or, alternatively, to prefer an appeal. 42.In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the decree issued pursuant to the judgment on admission is valid and capable of being executed. 43.Consequently, the Notice of motion dated 13th November 2025 is disallowed with costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2026………………………………STELLA RUTTOJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms. Macharia for the Claimants/RespondentsMr. Mwenda instructed by Ms. Nthurima for the Respondent/ApplicantQabale Court AssistantOrderIn view of the declaration of measures restricting court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They have waived compliance with Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open court. In permitting this course, this court had been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which impose on this court the duty of the court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes.STELLA RUTTOJUDGE