https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1805

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NYERI** **ELRC CAUSE NO. E021 OF 2025** **DENNIS MUGENDI KINYUA……………………………………….CLAIMANT** **VERSUS** **WINAS DT SACCO LIMITED…………………………………...RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** 1. It is not in dispute that, prior to his termination from employment, the Claimant was employed by the Respondent as the Head of ICT. The Claimant contends that his dismissal was unlawful and unjustified, as it was founded on allegations relating to the failure of an external ICT support system, a matter which he maintains was outside his control and responsibility. 2. The Claimant further asserts that he was subjected to harassment and undue pressure in the workplace, having been unfairly held accountable for the malfunction of an ICT support system that was procured without his involvement or input. He further avers that the Respondent acted maliciously and capriciously in terminating his employment without adherence to due process. 3. On the basis of the foregoing, the Claimant seeks the following reliefs against the Respondent: 4. ***A Declaration that the suspension and subsequent Summarily Dismissal of the Claimant by the Respondent was unlawful, unfair, unprocedural, and in breach of the principles of natural justice and fair administrative action.*** 5. ***An Order for Reinstatement of the Claimant to his position as Head of ICT without loss of salary, benefits, or seniority.*** 6. ***In the alternative, and without prejudice to Prayer 2 above, an award of compensatory damages for unfair and unlawful suspension, loss of income, mental anguish, reputational damage, and professional injury occasioned by the Respondent’s actions.*** 7. ***An Order of Permanent Injunction restraining the Respondent, whether by itself, its servants, agents, or assigns, from terminating, disciplining, or otherwise victimizing the Claimant based on the events arising from or related to the ICT platform failure of 25th January 2025 or his professional reports submitted thereafter.*** 8. ***An Order directing the Respondent to expunge any adverse records relating to the Claimant’s suspension or alleged negligence from his employment file.*** 9. ***Any other or further relief that this Honourable Court may deem just and fit to grant in the interests of justice and fairness.*** 10. ***An order for payment of withheld salary and other entitlement to the employer for the period of violation of his rights under the employment law.*** 11. ***An order directing that employer to render a certificate of service.*** 12. ***Interests on (e) and (f) above at Court rates.*** 13. ***Costs of this suit.*** 14. In response to the Claim, the Respondent avers that the Claimant was lawfully dismissed on valid grounds, including failure to effectively manage ICT vendors, failure to monitor system operations, and failure to ensure data integrity and security. 15. The Respondent further denies that the Claimant was subjected to harassment or unjust blame, maintaining that the issues arose from serious system failures within the Claimant’s department, which adversely affected its operations and reputation. 16. The Respondent further contends that the disciplinary process was properly undertaken and was justified by findings of gross negligence and breach of duty. It maintains that the Claimant was lawfully terminated and that there exists no legal basis for reinstatement or payment of the full salary claimed. To this end, the Respondent has urged the Court to dismiss the claim with costs. 17. The matter proceeded for hearing on 23rd April 2026, during which both parties adduced oral evidence. **Claimant’s Case** 1. The Claimant testified in support of his case as CW1. At the outset, he sought to adopt his witness statement to constitute his evidence in chief. He further produced the list and bundle of documents filed together with his Statement of Claim as exhibits before the Court. 2. It was the Claimant’s testimony that he joined the Respondent SACCO in 2006 as an ICT Officer and rose through the ranks to the position of Head of ICT, which he held until his suspension and dismissal in February 2025. 3. The Claimant stated that he served the Respondent for a period of over 18 years and 5 months without any warning or disciplinary record. He further testified that during his tenure, he designed and implemented the SACCO’s ICT infrastructure, including networks, hardware, software systems, and connectivity, and consistently ensured data security and operational stability. 4. He further averred that the management of vendors and service providers was governed by Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and written contracts between the SACCO and the respective service providers. According to him, any breach of contractual obligations by a vendor attracted liability on the part of that vendor and not on him personally. 5. The Claimant further stated that his role entailed coordinating and supervising vendors, documenting and escalating system challenges, ensuring implementation of updates, and reporting unresolved issues to the CEO and Heads of Department. He maintained that he effectively discharged these responsibilities over the years, ensuring continued system functionality. 6. It was his testimony that in 2024, the SACCO Board approved a new mobile banking service provider in contravention of proper change management protocols. 7. He stated that he raised concerns, both verbally and in writing, regarding the provider’s inadequate capacity and resources, but his concerns were disregarded. 8. The Claimant further testified that when the new provider’s system failed during the processing of annual interest and dividends on 25th and 26th January 2025, all vendors were physically present at the SACCO headquarters alongside the CEO and Heads of Department. According to him, the failure occurred under their watch. 9. The Claimant asserted that he discharged his duties diligently and ought not to have been blamed for a technical failure attributable to the service provider. He further stated that there was no instance of data loss or compromise throughout his 18 years of service, as backup procedures, both automated and physical, were consistently maintained at the headquarters and at the Kiritiri branch. 10. He added that the replication failure cited in the audit report was temporary and resulted from power outages at the Kiritiri branch, and that corrective measures were already underway with the core system vendor. 11. The Claimant further stated that system slowdowns during Annual General Meetings were a common occurrence due to high transaction volumes and external network dependencies. He added that despite these known industry challenges, he was frequently subjected to harassment and verbal intimidation by the Board during such events whenever delays occurred. 12. It was his testimony that the system failure on 25th and 26th January 2025 was attributable to the technical limitations of the new mobile service provider. He further stated that he prepared a professional incident report based on the provider’s findings, but the Finance Committee rejected it without justification. 13. The Claimant further averred that he was never informed of any internal investigation nor issued with a show-cause letter prior to his suspension. He stated that the Information Systems Audit of November 2024 was a routine annual audit and that the issues identified therein were already being addressed prior to the disciplinary action. 14. He maintained that the audit report did not attribute any misconduct to him nor recommend disciplinary proceedings against him. 15. The Claimant further testified that on 3rd February 2025, he attended a meeting pursuant to summons, expecting to clarify his ICT report, but was instead suspended immediately without being heard. 16. He stated that he was never issued with a proper show-cause letter nor informed of any specific disciplinary offence. He further contended that, under the Respondent’s Human Resource Policy, suspension is to follow an investigation into a defined disciplinary offence and should not exceed 60 days. In his view, his dismissal occurred before the lapse of the suspension period. 17. The Claimant denied receiving any summons dated 31st January 2025, stating that the only summons he received was for 3rd February 2025, which he attended. He added that he was not given an opportunity to explain his report despite the agenda indicating that the meeting was intended for that purpose. 18. He further denied receiving any summons for 1st February 2025. 19. With respect to the summons scheduled for 4th March 2025, the Claimant stated that he was unwell and under a doctor’s orders for complete bed rest. He further testified that he was unable to attend the meeting of 11th March 2025 due to continued illness and heavy medication. 20. He contended that, despite being aware of his condition, the Respondent issued multiple summonses within a short period and failed to allow adequate recovery time, which, in his view, was harassment. 21. He further stated that a subsequent virtual summons on 13th March 2025 was equally unreasonable given his medical condition. 22. According to the Claimant, the Respondent’s insistence on proceeding with disciplinary processes while he was bedridden, coupled with his dismissal before the lapse of the suspension period, demonstrated bad faith and procedural unfairness. 23. The Claimant further testified that during the Finance Committee meeting, he was ridiculed and intimidated. He alleged that the Chairman, Treasurer, and Secretary had political interests in Embu County and were hostile towards him due to his brother’s involvement in the county government. In his view, the dismissal was motivated by personal vendetta rather than professional grounds. 24. He further averred that he was denied an opportunity to present evidence from his official laptop and that his suspension conditions barred him from accessing SACCO premises. 25. The Claimant stated that despite submitting duly signed clearance and pension claim forms, the CEO and Heads of Department refused to clear or sign them, thereby denying him access to his dues. 26. He further testified that the Respondent’s Credit Department is currently demanding repayment of loans and threatening guarantors, notwithstanding the SACCO’s alleged indebtedness to him, which has caused him and his family significant financial and psychological distress. 27. It was the Claimant’s testimony that his reputation within the community and among SACCO members, built over 18 years of service, has been severely damaged. **Respondent’s Case** 1. The Respondent called oral evidence through ***John Njue Kaweru***, who testified as RW1. Mr. Kaweru identified himself as the Respondent’s Treasurer. Equally, Mr. Kaweru ought to adopt his witness statement to constitute his evidence in chief. He further produced the Respondent’s initial and further lists and bundles of documents as exhibits before the Court. 2. RW1 testified that the Claimant appeared before the Finance and Administration Committee of the Respondent on 28th January 2025, where he was afforded an opportunity to respond to concerns relating to system vulnerabilities and operational inefficiencies within the ICT Department. 3. According to RW1, the Claimant’s explanations were found unsatisfactory, and he was subsequently lawfully suspended on 3rd February 2025 in accordance with the Respondent’s Human Resource Policies and Disciplinary Procedures, to facilitate further investigations into the management of the ICT Department. 4. He further stated that the suspension was founded on the Claimant’s alleged failure to effectively manage ICT vendors, monitor system operations, and ensure data integrity and protection, which in turn compromised the SACCO’s operations and reputation. 5. RW1 testified that the Claimant was given an opportunity to respond to the Board regarding the findings of the internal audit report that had been issued prior to his suspension. 6. He further stated that although the Claimant had not previously been issued with warning or show-cause letters in relation to integrity concerns, the gravity of the allegations necessitated immediate disciplinary intervention. 7. RW1 further testified that the Claimant was summoned for disciplinary hearings on several occasions, namely 31st January 2025, 21st February 2025, 3rd March 2025, 11th March 2025, and 12th March 2025, but failed to attend. 8. According to RW1, the Respondent strictly complied with due process in accordance with its Human Resource Manual, and the Claimant’s rights were duly observed throughout the disciplinary process. 9. He further testified that the disciplinary process was duly concluded and that the Claimant was dismissed in accordance with the Respondent’s Human Resource Manual. 10. RW1 further stated that a comprehensive ICT Systems Audit Report confirmed that the service provider engaged by the Respondent possessed the requisite technical competence, and that the system vulnerabilities arose under the Claimant’s management. 11. According to RW1, the Claimant participated in the engagement of the said service provider and was aware of its limitations, but failed to take appropriate corrective action. 12. RW1 further testified that by virtue of his position as Head of the ICT Department, the Claimant also served as Secretary to the ICT Committee, and at no time during his tenure did he raise any concerns regarding vendor incapacity for consideration by management or any relevant organ. 13. He further stated that the system downtime referred to by the Claimant occurred on 25th February 2025 (sic), and that similar failures had previously been experienced on 25th January 2025, before the Claimant’s suspension, thereby demonstrating that the issues predated any alleged external causes. 14. RW1 maintained that the audit findings confirmed that the system vulnerabilities arose under the Claimant’s management and formed the basis of both his suspension and eventual dismissal. 15. He further stated that, in accordance with the Respondent’s policies, any exiting employee is required to undertake clearance procedures prior to payment of terminal dues and to settle all outstanding loan obligations. 16. RW1 contended that the Claimant declined and/or failed to present himself for clearance despite being formally requested to do so by the Respondent. 17. He further stated that the Claimant remains liable for his outstanding loan obligations at the prevailing Sacco rates applicable to ordinary members. 18. RW1 further described the Claimant as a vexatious litigant, noting that he had previously filed a similar suit in *Nyeri ELRCC/E004/2025*, which was dismissed, and in which the Court advised him to pursue the appropriate labour claim. According to RW1, this conduct demonstrated the Claimant’s intent to frustrate the disciplinary process and avoid participation therein, as evidenced by his failure to attend hearings despite multiple adjournments granted by the Respondent. 19. RW1 further stated that the Claimant’s claim for reinstatement and payment of full salary is unfounded, as the disciplinary process was lawfully conducted and concluded in accordance with the Respondent’s Human Resource Manual. 20. In RW1’s view, the Respondent acted fairly, lawfully, and in good faith throughout the process, and the Claim is without merit. **Submissions** 1. It was submitted on behalf of the Claimant that he was never involved in the procurement or selection of third-party service providers and that the Respondent failed to prove through any valid evidence the difference between the technical committee and procurement committee, the roles, where, and when he was involved in the whole process. 2. In further submissions, it was stated that the Claimant lacked contractual or approving authority to engage or terminate the services of the vendors. That further, he had proactively, repeatedly, and in writing warned management regarding the specific vendors' technical deficiencies and lack of operational capacity, which the Respondent ignored to take action. 3. It was further submitted that the Claimant consistently furnished management with detailed technical reports and risk advisories highlighting the hazards posed by these providers. 4. The Claimant further contended that the internal audit report relied upon by the Respondent failed to attribute any negligence, professional misconduct, or fraudulent omission to him. 5. It was the Claimant’s position that an employer cannot shift liability for systemic failures attributable to independent third-party contractors onto an employee who had no hand in procuring them. 6. In the Claimant’s view, an unblemished 18-year record of progressive promotion is entirely irreconcilable with the sudden, unsubstantiated allegation of gross negligence. 7. The Claimant further contended that the Respondent failed to issue him with a valid and distinct Notice to Show Cause, in direct violation of its own Human Resource Manual and Section 41 of the Employment Act. He further contended that the Respondent proceeded with the disciplinary process despite being formally notified that he was seriously unwell and on medically certified bed rest. 8. It was the Claimant’s further contention that the Respondent issued multiple disciplinary summonses within a compressed span of approximately 9 days, completely disregarding his known medical incapacitation. That further, the Respondent high-handedly proceeded to conduct a disciplinary "hearing" and condemned the Claimant in absentia. 9. Although the Respondent uploaded its submissions on the online portal, it did not pay the requisite filing fee, and as a result, the said submissions were not duly filed. **Analysis and Determination** 1. The Court, having considered the pleadings by both parties, the documentary evidence on record, and the rival submissions, has isolated the following issues for determination: 2. ***Whether the Respondent has demonstrated that it had a fair and valid reason to terminate the Claimant’s employment;*** 3. ***Whether the Claimant was accorded procedural fairness prior to termination from employment; and*** 4. ***Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.*** **Valid and fair reason?** 1. The starting point in the determination of this issue is ***Section 43 of the Employment Act,*** which places an obligation on an employer to prove the reasons for termination. Failure to discharge this burden renders the termination unfair. Further, ***Section 45(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act*** provides that a termination of employment is unfair where the employer fails to prove: 2. ***that the reason for the termination is valid;*** 3. ***that the reason for the termination is a fair reason-*** * 1. ***related to the employee's conduct, capacity, or compatibility; or*** 2. ***based on the operational requirements of the employer; …*** 4. This therefore means that it is not sufficient for an employer to merely state the reasons for termination; the reasons must be both fair and valid, and the burden lies on the employer to establish this. 5. Turning to the present case, the Claimant is alleged to have fundamentally breached his obligations under the contract of employment. It is worth pointing out at this juncture that the letter of summary dismissal does not particularize the specific manner in which the Claimant is alleged to have breached his contractual obligations. 6. In an undated memorandum, the Claimant was invited to appear before the Respondent’s disciplinary committee on 11th March to respond to nine (9) issues which the Respondent considered to amount to gross misconduct on his part. 7. Further, from the letter dated 3rd February 2025 placing the Claimant on suspension, it was alleged that he failed to manage vendors and oversee the implementation of various SLAs, contracts, and related agreements within the ICT Department, thereby exposing the Respondent’s ICT operations to risk. It was further alleged that he failed to monitor system operations to ensure normal functioning of servers, workstations, and the flow of information across LAN and WAN systems, resulting in operational disruptions and compromising business continuity. In addition, it was alleged that he failed to ensure data integrity and protection, leading to discrepancies in SACCO reports. 8. In light of the foregoing, the specific grounds upon which the Claimant’s termination was based are not clearly discernible from the record. 9. However, what emerges from the pleadings and the evidence adduced by both parties is that the Claimant’s woes stemmed from the system failure experienced during the processing of annual interest and dividends through mobile banking on 25th January 2025 at the Annual General Meeting. 10. It is apparent that, following the system failure experienced on 25th January 2025, the Respondent engaged Applied Principles Limited to investigate the matter. Subsequently, following a meeting held between the Respondent’s directors and its service providers, *Jumbo Star* and *View Tech*, who were responsible for supporting the Respondent’s systems, Applied Principles Limited prepared a report, which was exhibited before the Court. 11. In the said report, Applied Principles Limited concluded that the core banking system, supported by *Jumbo Star*, lacked the capacity to handle the high transaction volumes generated by members during the dividend payout process. It was further observed in the report that the failed transactions were attributable to a technical failure within the core banking system. Consequently, it was recommended that *Jumbo Star* work on the server API to accommodate more service calls and respond back on time to the mobile banking system, i.e., to handle more requests/load during high traffic periods. 12. In support of his case, the Claimant produced emails dated 16th September 2024 and 25th September 2024 addressed to the Respondent’s CEO and copied to the Chair of the ICT Committee, in which he raised concerns regarding instability in services provided by the two (2) vendors, *View Tech* and *Jumbo Star*. In the said email, the Claimant called for urgent technical engagement and intervention by the vendors, noting increasing challenges in the mobile banking platform and warning that the situation posed risks to the sustainability of the Respondent’s operations. 13. In another email dated 6th November 2024, the Claimant addressed representatives of *Jumbo Star* and *View Tech*, highlighting issues requiring urgent attention and resolution. 14. The Claimant further produced an email dated 13th December 2024 inviting representatives of *Jumbo Star* to a meeting scheduled for 16th December 2024 at the Respondent’s premises to address critical system issues. 15. In yet another email dated 31st December 2024, addressed to representatives of both *Jumbo Star* and *View Tech*, the Claimant reminded the vendors that the Respondent’s annual dividend and interest processing was undertaken in the month of January every year and constituted an intensive process requiring attention due to its complexity. To this end, the Claimant asked the two vendors to prepare themselves for an invitation prior to the preparation and coordination. 16. From the foregoing, it is evident that the Claimant raised concerns with the relevant vendors and actively sought their intervention in respect of system performance issues, particularly in the lead-up to the Annual General Meeting when the processing of dividends and interest was scheduled to take place. 17. Notably, the Respondent did not indicate, let alone suggest, what further action the Claimant was required to take in the circumstances but failed to undertake, hence the conclusion that he had fundamentally breached his contractual obligations. 18. What emerges from the record, and in particular from the report by Applied Principles Limited, is that the system failure experienced by the Respondent during the processing of annual interest and dividends on 25th January 2025 was attributable to capacity limitations of the external vendors engaged to support the system. Consequently, such failure cannot reasonably be attributed to the Claimant’s breach of his contractual obligations. 19. To this end, the Court finds that the reason advanced for the Claimant’s summary dismissal was neither fair nor valid within the meaning of ***Section 45(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act.*** **Procedural fairness?** 1. The requirement for fair procedure is generally set out under ***Section 45(2)(c) of the Employment Act***. In addition, ***Section 41*** prescribes the specific procedural safeguards to be observed by an employer prior to terminating an employment relationship. This entails notifying an employee of the allegations against him or her and affording the employee an opportunity to make representations in response, in the presence of a fellow employee or a shop floor union representative of their choice. 2. The record bears that after the Claimant was placed on suspension on 3rd February 2025, he was invited by the Respondent to attend a disciplinary hearing on 4th March 2025. Following the Claimant’s email dated 3rd March 2025, the hearing was adjourned to 11th March 2025. The hearing was once again adjourned to 13th March 2025 on account of the Claimant’s illness. It is notable that in the invitation to the disciplinary hearing, the Claimant was afforded the option of attending the hearing either physically or virtually. 3. The Claimant was subsequently notified through a letter dated 12th March 2025 that the hearing scheduled for 13th March 2025 would proceed, noting that he had previously been accommodated through adjournments. He was further informed that the medical report relied upon only recommended bed rest for pain relief and did not indicate any impairment of his capacity to participate in disciplinary proceedings. He was also reminded that he had been on suspension since 3rd February 2025, which, under the Human Resources Manual, was not to exceed 60 days. He was therefore requested to attend the hearing either physically or virtually, and cautioned that failure to do so would result in the Board proceeding based on his prior responses and the investigations on record. 4. In response, the Claimant, in his letter dated 12th March 2025, stated that he was not in a good state of health to attend the summons. He further indicated that he did not intend to participate in any disciplinary proceedings of any nature in respect of what he termed his unlawful suspension, stating that the matter was already pending before the Court. 5. It was subsequent to the foregoing correspondence that the Respondent proceeded with the disciplinary hearing on 13th March 2025, following which the Claimant was summarily dismissed from employment. 6. From the Claimant’s letter dated 12th March 2025, it is evident that he expressly indicated that he would not attend any disciplinary hearing in relation to the allegations levelled against him and specifically flowing from his suspension. 7. Therefore, by his own admission, the Claimant chose not to participate in the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Respondent and, as such, cannot be heard to contend that he was dismissed without being accorded an opportunity to be heard. 8. On this issue, the Court concurs with the decision in ***Jackson Butiya v Eastern Produce Limited (Industrial Court Cause No. 335 of 2011),*** where it was held that: **“An employee who squanders the internal grievance handling mechanisms provided by an employer cannot come to Court and say “I refused to talk with those people and therefore I was not heard, order them to pay me.” It is not the role of the Court to supervise the internal grievance handling processes between employers and employees. The role of the Court is to ensure that such processes are undertaken within the law.”** 1. In the circumstances, it may very well be said that in the present case, the Claimant declined to utilise the opportunity afforded to him to present his defence orally. 2. All things considered, it cannot be said that the Respondent denied the Claimant procedural fairness or failed to afford him an opportunity to defend himself in accordance with the requirements of ***Section 41 of the Employment Act***. **Reliefs?** 1. The primary relief sought by the Claimant in this case is reinstatement to his position as Head of ICT without loss of salary, benefits and seniority. 2. Guided by the considerations set out under ***Section 49(4)(a) of the Employment Act,*** including the practicability of reinstatement, and the common law principle that courts are generally reluctant to order specific performance in contracts of service save in exceptional circumstances, the Court is of the view that reinstatement is not an appropriate remedy in the present case. 3. In this regard, I will follow the decision in ***Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya & 3 others [2014] eKLR***, in which the Court of Appeal held that reinstatement has to be considered on its own merits based on the spirit of fairness and justice in keeping with the objectives of industrial adjudication. The Court proceeded to underscore some of the key principles that ought to be applied in considering reinstatement as a remedy. For instance, the traditional common law position that courts will not force parties in a personal relationship to continue in such a relationship against the will of one of them. In the Court’s view, that would engender friction, which is not healthy for businesses unless the employment relationship is capable of withstanding friction, such as where the employer is a large organization in which personal contact between the affected employee and the officer who took action against him will be minimal. 4. In light of the foregoing and applying the principles enunciated in ***Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya & 3 others (supra***), the Court is not persuaded that reinstatement would be a practicable remedy in the circumstances of this case, especially considering that the Claimant held a senior position in the Respondent organisation at the time of termination from employment. 5. Consequently, the appropriate remedy is an award of compensation for unfair termination under ***Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act***. 6. Having found that the termination was not founded on a fair and valid reason, the Court awards the Claimant compensation equivalent to eight (8) months of his last gross salary. In arriving at this award, the Court has considered the length of service, which spanned approximately eighteen (18) years, the overall circumstances surrounding the termination, and the Claimant’s prospects of securing comparable or suitable alternative employment. 7. In view of the undisputed employment relationship between the parties, the Court finds that the Claimant is entitled to a certificate of service pursuant to ***Section 51(1) of the Employment Act.*** **Orders** 1. In the final analysis, Judgment is entered in favour of the Claimant in the following manner: - 2. **A declaration is hereby issued that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was substantively unfair.** 3. **The Claimant is awarded compensation equivalent to eight (8) months of his last gross salary. Notably, neither party produced the Claimant’s last payslip nor disclosed the Claimant’s last salary. Consequently, the specific monetary value of the award cannot be computed in this judgment.** 4. **The Respondent shall issue the Claimant with a Certificate of Service within thirty (30) days from the date of this judgment.** 5. **The Respondent shall bear the costs of the suit.** **DATED, SIGNED** and **DELIVERED** at **NYERI** this**26th day**of **June,** 2026. ……………………………… **STELLA RUTTO** **JUDGE** **In the presence of**: Mr. Kivuti for the Claimant Mr. Tanui for the Respondent Ndati Court Assistant **ORDER** In 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 RUTTO** **JUDGE**