https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1843

Kenya Union of Domestics, Hotels, Educational Institutions and Hospitals v Nyakiambi Girls Secondary School (Cause E060 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1843 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1843 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru Cause E060 of 2025 J Rika, J June 30, 2026 Between Kenya Union of Domestics, Hotels, Educational Institutions And Hospitals Claimant and Nyakiambi Girls Secondary School Respondent Ruling 1.The Respondent filed an application dated 9th February 2026, praying for orders that, the orders issued on 12th January 2025 and 27th January 2026 be varied, stayed; the instant suit be re-opened; and, the Respondent be allowed to defend this matter. 2.The application is founded on the affidavit of Respondent’s Principal, Peninah Mwangi, sworn on 9th February 2026. 3.She states that, the Court gave orders on 12th November 2025 [not 12th January 2025] scheduling the Claim for formal proof, on 27th January 2025. 4.Peninah states that the Respondent instructed the Attorney-General after the orders made on 12th November 2025. There was a change in school management, occasioning delay in instructing the Attorney-General. 5.The Respondent states that it has a good Response to the Claim, and should therefore be allowed to respond. 6.The record indicates that the application dated 9th February 2026, was scheduled for hearing on 19th February 2026. 7.The Respondent did not attend Court, and the application was dismissed, with costs to the Claimant. 8.The Claimant was heard on formal proof as scheduled on 27th January 2026. The case for the Claimant was closed on this date. 9.On 26th February 2026, the Claim was scheduled for mention to confirm filing of submissions by the Claimant. 10.The Respondent filed another application, indicated to be dated 19th March 2026, asking the Cour to reinstate its application which was dismissed on 19th February 2026. 11.The Court deferred its Judgment, to consider the new application filed by the Respondent. 12.The Respondent attributes its failure to prosecute its application on 19th February 2026, to poor internet connectivity. 13.The Claimant submits that the Respondent failed to respond to the Substantive Claim, leading to formal proof. The present application is intended to delay Judgment. The Court Finds: - 14.Default by the Respondent to file its pleadings and failure to attend Court when required to do so, has been so sustained, and without reasonable excuse. 15.The Court sat and heard all the matters that were listed for 19th February 2026. All matters proceeded on the virtual platform, and no party, even the unrepresented, failed to attend Court on account of poor internet connectivity. 16.Why would both the Attorney-General and the Respondent School, have no internet connectivity, on the date their application, brought under certificate of urgency, was due for hearing? 17.The failure to attend Court, and to prosecute the application, was in keeping with a practice and pattern of indolence by the Respondent, manifest in the record, right from the date the Claim was served upon the Respondent. 18.The Claimant merits to have a Judgment, having prosecuted and closed its case in accordance with the law, and the Respondent having been accorded opportunity to respond to the Claim, and spurned the opportunity.It is ordered: -a.The application by the Respondent is declined.b.Deferred Judgment shall be delivered on 30th July 2026.c.No order on the costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAKURU, UNDER RULE 68[5] OF THE E&LRC [PROCEDURE] RULES, 2024, THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.JAMES RIKAJUDGE