https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1593

Step to the Future Academy Ltd v Odundo (Appeal E191 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1593 (KLR) (12 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1593 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Appeal E191 of 2025 NJ Abuodha, J June 12, 2026 Between Step To The Future Academy Ltd Appellant and Millicent Atieno Odundo Respondent (Being an appeal from the Judgment of Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kiambu (Honourable Kibet Sambu (SPM) delivered on 30th August, 2023 in MCELRC 10 of 2022) Judgment 1.Through the Memorandum of Appeal dated 28th September, 2023 the Appellant appeals against part of the Judgment of Honourable Kibet Sambu (SPM) delivered on 30th August, 2023 in MCELRC 10 of 2022 on grounds inter alia:a.The learned magistrate erred in both fact and law in failing to make a determination on whether the respondent had sued the wrong party and thus respondent was nonsuited and thus failed to dismiss the suit on this ground. 2.The Appellant consequently prayed that the appeal be allowed and the court makes a determination on this ground and allow the appeal with costs to the appellant. 3.The Appeal was disposed of by written submission Appellant’s Submissions 4.The Appellant’s Advocate, Mr. Mbulo submitted a submitted among others that the appellant in the lower court challenged the institution of the suit as the respondent had sued the wrong party and hence nonsuited as against the respondent. The appellant therefore sort that the suit be struck out but the lower court never determined the issue. 5.According to counsel, the appellant through its agents produced documentary evidence, one being a letter dated 22nd July, 2019 which was a letter of approval for the registration as a school where the name was approved as “Step to the Future School owned by Enos Emonyi. Counsel however contended that the registration certificate and name was shown as “Step To The Future Academy Ltd. According to Mr. Mbulo, “Step To The Future Academy Ltd” and “Step to the Future School” are two different legal entities. Counsel further argued that apart from the difference in names, the two institutions are registered under two different legal regimes hence have no connection whatsoever. 6.Mr. Mbulo further argued that the respondent was duly notified by the directors of Advancing His Kingdom International that the right name was Steps To The Future School and not Step To The Future Academy Ltd as claimed by the respondent and further prior to the filing of the claim by the respondent, she was in possession of the NSSF account statement which showed her rightful employer as Advancing His Kingdom International. The appellant therefore urged the court to allow the appeal with costs. 7.The respondent did not file any submissions in respect of the appeal Determination 8.The court has gone through the record of appeal dated 25th March, 2025 and more particularly the judgement appealed from found from page 110 of the record. The court notes that the disposition of the suit by the trial court found at page 119 of the record of appeal was that the suit was dismissed with costs. 9.This appeal was on the single issue that the respondent sued the wrong party and is calling upon this court to make a finding on that issue since the trial court never considered the same. The court has however perused the record including the proceedings and has noted that even though the appellant pleaded that the claimant sued the wrong institution, it went ahead and justified the dismissal of the respondent on grounds of gross misconduct and detailed the factual grounds upon which the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of gross misconduct was founded. The appellant further called witnesses all of whom acknowledged knowing the respondent. It is therefore amazing that a party who claimed had been wrongly sued could have so much details about the claim and even call witnesses who did not deny knowledge of the respondent but went ahead and provided the factual details of reasons supporting the dismissal of the respondent from employment. 10.Further as much as Counsel for the appellant contended that documents were tabled before the trial court demonstrating that the respondent sued the wrong party, a perusal of the record shows that even though some documents were attached to the pleadings, there was no evidence that they were adopted as exhibits and nothing was mentioned by the appellant’s witnesses regarding the distinctive nature of the appellant from the respondent with regard to employer-employee relationship. What then was the trial court supposed to base its finding on the issue that this court is now called upon to pronounce itself on? 11.In conclusion, despite the fact that the suit before the trial court was dismissed, that does not prevent the court from describing this appeal as frivolous and an abuse of the court process. 12.The same is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. 13.It is so ordered. DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2026DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2026ABUODHA NELSON JORUMPRESIDING JUDGE-APPEALS DIVISION