[2025] KEELRC 559 (KLR)
The court found that the Respondent had filed a list of witnesses and documents contemporaneously with its Response, and had subsequently filed a witness statement and supplementary documents. The Response specifically pleaded that the Claimant was in breach of contract and misconduct, outlining instances of breach,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELRC 559 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Jagongo Obara; Respondent: Technical University of Kenya
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E186 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Cause / Ruling on Motion to Strike Out Defence and Enter Judgment
- Outcome
- motion dismissed with costs
- Judges
- S Radido
- Legal Topics
- Constructive Dismissal, Breach of Contract, Unfair Termination, Strike Out Application
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Jagongo Obara
Applicant
Technical University of Kenya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Cause / Ruling on Motion to Strike Out Defence and Enter Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondent's Defence should be struck out for constituting blanket denials and lacking triable issues.
- 2 Whether the Claimant is entitled to judgment as prayed in the Statement of Claim without a full hearing.
- 3 Whether the Respondent has filed sufficient documents and raised triable issues to warrant a full trial.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Respondent had filed a list of witnesses and documents contemporaneously with its Response, and had subsequently filed a witness statement and supplementary documents. The Response specifically pleaded that the Claimant was in breach of contract and misconduct, outlining instances of breach, thereby raising triable issues. The court held that the existence of triable issues and the absence of pre-trial directions made it inappropriate to strike out the Response or to enter judgment summarily. The application to strike out the Defence and enter judgment was therefore dismissed, as the Respondent was entitled to have its case heard on the merits.
Court Disposition
motion dismissed with costs
Orders
- The Motion dated 28 October 2024 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Obara v Technical University of Kenya (Cause E186 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 559 (KLR) (27 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELRC 559 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause E186 of 2024
S Radido, J
February 27, 2025
Between
John Jagongo Obara
Claimant
and
Technical University of Kenya
Respondent
Ruling
1. Technical University of Kenya (the Respondent) interdicted John Jagongo Obara (the Claimant) through a letter dated 11 December 2023.
2. The Claimant was aggrieved he sought legal advice and on 13 December 2023, his advocate sent a formal demand to the Respondent asserting constructive dismissal and breach of contract.
3. The Claimant sent another demand on 18 January 2024 and on 11 March 2024, he sued the Respondent, alleging unfair termination of employment (constructive dismissal) and breach of contract.
4. The Respondent filed a Response on 16 May 2024, and on 31 October 2024, the Claimant filed a Motion seeking orders:i.The Respondent’s Defence dated 8th May 2024 be and is hereby struck out.ii.This Honourable Court be and is hereby pleased to enter judgment in favour of the Claimant/applicant as prayed in the Statement of Claim dated 4th March 2024. iii.Costs of this application be awarded to the Claimant/applicant.
5. The grounds in support of the Motion were that the Response constituted blanket denials; supporting documents/statements had not been filed; the Response did not disclose any triable issues or reasonable defence; was an abuse of the court process and meant to delay the determination of the Cause.
6. The Respondent filed a replying affidavit in opposition to the Motion on 2 December 2024, wherein it contended that the Response raised triable issues; traversed the allegations by the Claimant; list of witnesses and documents had been filed alongside the Response and that 34 documents had been filed.
7. The Claimant’s submissions were not on record while the Respondent filed its submissions on 21 February 2025.
8. The Court has considered the Motion, affidavits, submissions and the record and the following emerge.
9. First, the Respondent filed a list of witnesses and documents on 16 May 2024. The Response was filed on the same day.
10. Second, a witness statement and supplementary documents were filed on 4 November 2024.
11. Third, in paragraph 3 of the Response, the Respondent pleaded that the Claimant was in breach of contract/misconduct, and this led to the disciplinary process/action. Instances of breach have been outlined.
12. Clearly, the Response raises a triable issue.
13. Lastly, the Court has yet to issue pre-trial directions and it would not be apposite to strike out the Response or shut out the Respondent from the ventilating its case.
Orders 14. Flowing from the above, the Court finds the Motion dated 28 October 2024 without merit. It is dismissed with costs.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED IN NAIROBI ON THIS 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025. RADIDO STEPHEN, MCIARBJUDGEAppearancesFor Claimant Ibrahim, Issack & Co. AdvocatesFor Respondent Tongoi & Co. AdvocatesCourt Assistant Wangu