https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1346

Mohamed v Uchumi Supermarkets PLC (Cause E421 of 2023) [2026] KEELRC 1346 (KLR) (21 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1346 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Cause E421 of 2023 CN Baari, J May 21, 2026 Between Mohamed Ahmed Mohamed Claimant and Uchumi Supermarkets Plc Respondent Ruling 1.Before Court is the Respondent’s Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 27th October, 2025, wherein it contends that the Claimant’s application for entry of judgment offends Order 7 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 2.The Respondent argues that the Defence and Counterclaim dated 3rd June 2024 constitute a cross-suit raising substantive issues that must be determined together with the main claim. It is contended that the Court is required to adjudicate both the original claim and the counterclaim before issuing a final judgment. 3.The Respondent further submits that a final judgment cannot procedurally be entered while the counterclaim remains pending, and argues therefore that the Claimant’s application is defective, an abuse of the court process, and should therefore be struck out with costs. 4.Parties canvassed the objection by way of written submissions. The Claimant’s Submissions 5.The Claimant submits that under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Court may enter judgment at any stage of the proceedings where there are admissions of fact made in the pleadings or otherwise. 6.The Claimant contends that the Respondent’s Statement of Defence dated 3rd June 2024 contains a clear and unequivocal admission of indebtedness in the sum of Kshs. 41,598,642/-. The Claimant sought to rely in the decision in Choitram v Nazari, where the Court held that judgment on admission may be entered where the admission is plain, unconditional, and unambiguous. 7.The Claimant further submits that the purpose of Order 13 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules is to enable a party to obtain expeditious judgment where there is no dispute as to the material facts or the amount claimed. 8.The Claimant argues that the Respondent’s admission in the Statement of Defence removes any triable issue regarding both the existence and quantum of the debt owed, and consequently, the Claimant prays that the Court enter judgment on admission in favour of the Claimant in the sum of Kshs. 41,598,642/-. 9.The Claimant also relies on Cassam v Sachania, where the Court affirmed that judgment on admission is appropriate where the admission is plain and leaves no triable issues for determination. 10.The Claimant further opposes the Preliminary Objection raised by the Respondent, which contends that the Application dated 14th October 2025 is irregular for allegedly offending Order 7 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 11.It is the Claimant’s submission that Order 7 Rule 3 is inapplicable to applications for judgment on admission, and that the said provision governs the manner in which defences are pleaded, particularly requiring a defendant to plead all grounds showing that a suit is not maintainable so as to enable the Court determine the dispute conclusively. 12.The Claimant submits that, in contrast, an application for judgment on admission is a distinct procedural remedy provided under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, intended to facilitate expeditious judgment where a party has expressly admitted the whole or part of a claim in a pleading or other document. 13.Consequently, the Claimant contends that the present application is properly before the Court and is not defeated by the provisions of Order 7 Rule 3. 14.The Claimant therefore submits that the application for Judgment on Admission is separate and distinct from the pleadings contemplated under Order 7 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and that the said provision neither restricts nor regulates applications brought under Order 13 Rule 2. 15.The Claimant maintains that the present application is properly anchored in law and is solely intended to secure judgment on the basis of the Respondent’s express admission of liability. 16.The Claimant further submits that procedural rules must be interpreted within their proper context and applied in a manner that advances substantive justice, rather than in a manner that occasions procedural technicalities or unfairness. 17.The Claimant finally submits that the Respondent’s reliance on Order 7 Rule 3 is misplaced and incapable of defeating an otherwise competent application for judgment on admission. Determination 18.I have considered the Respondent’s Notice of Preliminary Objection and the rival submissions. The singular issue for determination is whether the Claimant’s application for judgment on admission offends Order 7 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules by reason of a pending Counterclaim. 19.It is now settled that a preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law capable of disposing of the matter without the need to ascertain contested facts. (See Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd). 20.The Respondent’s objection is premised on the argument that the Defence and Counterclaim constitute a cross-suit which must be heard and determined together with the main claim before any judgment can issue. The Respondent therefore contends that the Claimant’s application for judgment on admission is for this reason procedurally incompetent. 21.Order 13 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that where admissions of fact have been made, either on the pleadings or otherwise, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings enter such judgment as may be just. The object of the provision is to enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment to the extent of the admitted claim without waiting for the determination of contested issues. 22.The principles governing entry of judgment on admission are well settled. In Choitram v Nazari[1984] KECA 47 (KLR), the Court of Appeal held that admissions must be plain, clear, unequivocal and unconditional before judgment can be entered. Similarly, in Cassam v Sachania [1982] KECA 1 (KLR), the Court affirmed that judgment on admission is appropriate where the admission leaves no triable issue for determination. 23.The Court notes that the Respondent does not, under the Preliminary Objection, challenge the Claimant’s assertion of there being an admission capable of sustaining judgment under Order 13 Rule 2. Rather, the Respondent’s contention is that the existence of a Counterclaim automatically bars the Court from entertaining an application for judgment on admission. 24.In my view, a counterclaim, though treated as a cross-suit, does not by itself extinguish or suspend the Court’s jurisdiction under Order 13 Rule 2. The mere existence of a counterclaim cannot therefore operate as an absolute bar to the entry of judgment on an admitted claim, particularly where the admission is clear and separable from the issues raised in the counterclaim. 25.Further, Order 7 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not regulate or prohibit applications for judgment on admission brought under Order 13 Rule 2. 26.I therefore agree with the Claimant’s submission that the two provisions serve distinct procedural purposes. 27.In the circumstances, I find and hold that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate that the Claimant’s application is incompetent merely because a counterclaim exists. The Preliminary Objection therefore lacks merit. 28.In the end, I proceed to dismiss the Respondent’s Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 27th October, 2025, with costs in the cause. 29.The Claimant’s application dated 14th October, 2025 shall proceed for determination on the merits. 30.Costs shall abide the cause. 31.It is so ordered. SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED BY VIDEO-LINK AND IN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2026.C. N. BAARIJUDGEAppearance:Mr. Oketch present for the ClaimantN/A for the RespondentMs. Esther S-CA.