REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
ELRC CAUSE NO E428 OF 2022
(Before Hon. Justice Dr. Jacob Gakeri)
PATRICK S. MUGO..………………………………………………………...….CLAIMANT
VERSUS
TECHNICAL INSTITUTE GROUP OF SCHOOLS……………..1 ST RESPONDENT
KULDIP SINGH ……………………………………………….……..2 ND RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The claimant commenced the instant suit on 21 st June 2022 vide a Memorandum of Claim dated 20 th June 2022. The claimant’s case is that he was employed by the 1 st Respondent on 9 th July 2001 as an Inspector of Schools and doubled up as Operations Directors and Administrator for several schools and served diligently until February 2022 when he resigned after according the 1 st respondent a one (1) month’s notice.
The claimant averred that by the date of separation his salary was Kshs.131,380.00 and his dues owed by the 1 st Respondent were still outstanding, including salary arrears, unpaid salary, gratuity, accumulated terminal leave, overtime, house allowance unpaid NHIF deductions and unpaid NSSF deductions.
The claimant prays for:
(a) Terminal dues of Kshs.12,236,100 comprising of –
(i) salary arrears Kshs.2,237,878.00
(ii) Salary for January and February 2022 Kshs.150,132.00
(iii) Gratuity as agreed Kshs.3,213,421.00
(iv) Accumulated terminal leave Kshs.1,407,792.00
(v) Overtime Kshs.2,304,904.00
(vi) House allowance Kshs.2,593,147.00
(vii) Unpaid NHIF deductions Kshs.16,800.00
(viii) Unpaid NSSF deductions Kshs.312,026.00
(b) Genera damages for unfair treatment arising from the resignation.
(c) Certificate of service
(d) Costs of the suit and interest on (a) and (b) above.
(e) Any other relief the court may deem fit to grant.
Respondent’s case
By a response dated 20 th July 2022, the 1 st respondent stated that it was not a legal entity capable of being sued and the claimant had no cause of action again the respondents and the claim against the 2 nd Respondent offended the principal in Salomon v Salomon & Co. Ltd (1897 ) AC 22and the claim was for dismissal. The respondent denied frustrating the claimant or that his salary was Kshs.131,380.00. They denied owing the claimant anything and did not file a witness statement. The claimant’s reply to the Respondent’s Response dated 22 nd February 2023 raised no new issue.
Subsequently, vide a Notice of Motion dated 5 th December 2023, the Respondents counsel sought the striking out of the claim against the 2 nd Respondent and the court did so vide a ruling delivered on 17 th May 2024, which the claimant appealed against. There was no record of the outcome of the appeal.
The record is also unclear as to whether the Respondents motion to amend the Response to the Memorandum of claim was prosecuted. The Respondent prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
During the hearing on 23 rd June, 2026, the claimant adopted his witness statement and the Respondent’s witness was absent. Hearing was declared closed and directions on the filing and exchange of submissions were issued with a mention slated for 27 th July 2026.
When the court retired to prepare this judgment, none of the parties had filed submissions and none were considered.
Documents on record reveal that the 1 st Respondent employed the claimant as an Inspector of Schools effective 9 th July 2001 and the schools under the 1 st Respondent were;
Glad Toto Nursery Primary School – Pangani Agoi Road
Guru Nanak Secondary School – Hombe Road.
Gateway Boys Boarding High School – Thika Road
St. Edward High School Ngara Arcade – Ngara Road
Hill Top Boarding Primary School – Limuru Road, Tigoni
Technical Institute, Moktar Daddah Street – Shal Mansion Building Nairobi.
The Appointment letter was signed by the 2 nd Respondent as DIRECTOR. It is discernible that the claimant served diligently until he resigned vide letter dated 31 st January 2022 addressed to the 2 nd Respondent who accepted the resignation belatedly vide letter dated 1 st March 2022 by which date the claimant had already handed over as the letter acknowledged and the only outstanding issue was final dues.
Documents provided by the claimant further revealed that by letter dated 14 th January 2021 the claimant had demanded salary arrears amounting to Kshs.999,169 as parties had agreed on 19 th October 2020 in writing.
The claimant was additionally claiming the unpaid salary for October November and December 2020 amounting to Kshs.337,826.00. By that letter the claimant was demanding the sum of Kshs.2,237,878.00 owing to an underpayment of salary for one (1) year.
Similarly, by a written agreement dated 19 th October 2020 the claimant and the 2 nd respondent had agreed that the claimant would receive gratuity of Kshs.3,067,956 for the 18 years served. Although the claimant averred that his resignation was actuated by frustration by the Respondents, he did not provide particulars of the alleged frustration or allege that he was constructively dismissed.
More significantly, the claimant’s resignation letter dated 31 st January 2022 made no reference to any form of frustration or breach of any fundamental term of the contract of employment. The letter did not envince an employee who had no alternative but to leave. He appreciated the opportunity accorded by the 1 st Respondents and wished them success.
The fact that he accorded the 1 st Respondent the requisite one (1) month’s notice underline the fact that there was no fundamental breach of the contract of employment.
The claim is exclusively on outstanding dues.
In support of his case, the claimant attached copies phone messages from and to unidentified cell phone numbers and no certificate of electronic evidence was annexed as required by Section 106B of the Evidence Act and thus inadmissible as evidence.
The only issue for determination is whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
The court notes that since the 1 st Respondent did not file a witness statement or list and bundle of documents and had no witness testified, its averments in its Reply to the Memorandum of Claim remained mere averments as opposed to evidence. And had no evidential value.
However, the fact that the 1 st Respondent was absent at the hearing did not lessen the claimant’s burden of proof as the mantra remained, he who alleges or asserts bears the burden of proving the allegations or assertions by dint of the provisions Section 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act.
Under Section 107 of the Act,
(1) Whenever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist.
(2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Section 108 of the Evidence Act captures the incidence of burden that;
The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.
In the instant case, the claimant bore the burden to demonstrate entitlement to all the reliefs sought. In Kirugi & another v Kabiya & another (1984) KLR 347, the Court of Appeal held thus:
“The burden was always on the plaintiff to prove his case on a balance of probabilities even if the case was heard as formal proof. Likewise failure by the defendant to contest the case does not absolve a plaintiff of the duty to prove the case to the required standard.”
Similarly, in Nicholus Kipkemoi Korir v Hatari Security Guards Ltd (2016) EKLR, Abuodah J stated as follows:
“This burden of proof does not become any less on the employee simply because the employer has not defended the claim or absent from trail. The claimant must still prove his or her case. It is therefore not enough for the employee to simply make allegations on oath or in pleadings which are not backed by any evidence and expect the court to find in his or her favour.”
See also Gichinga Kibutha v Caroline Nduku (2018) eKLR and Jackson Tuikoek v Stephen Tangus Salienyi & 2 others (2013) eKLR.
Significantly all the reliefs sought are in the nature of special damages which must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved as held in Hahn v Sinah (1985) KLR 716. See also Nimo Ali v Sagoo Radiators Ltd (2013) KECA 163 (KLR), Richard Okuku Oloo v South Nyanza Sugar Co. Ltd (2013) eKLR and Premier Dairy Ltd v Amarjit Singh Sagoo & another (2013) KECA 95 (KLR) among others.
Applying these principles to the facts of the instant case it is clear that while some of the claims have been evidentiary proven, others have not.
The claim for salary arrears is historical and dates back to the COVID 19 Pandemic 2020 and the 1 st Respondent had agreed to pay the same including underpayment of Kshs.894,792.00.
Relatedly, the agreement on payment of gratuity of Kshs.3,067,956 dated 19 th October 2020 was not contested. From the evidence on record, the claim for salary arrears and for January and February 2022 was proved as was the claim for gratuity.
Concerning terminal leave Kshs.1,407,792.00 the claimant adduced no evidence in support of the claim. Neither the written witness statement nor the oral testimony provided in court explained the circumstance in which the days claimed for accrued including how many they were. The figure of Kshs.1,407,792.00 lacks a factual basis and was unproven.
The claim for overtime suffers the same fate as neither the oral evidence adduced in court by the claimant nor his written witness statement contained the relevant particulars and supportive evidence. Evidence of when the claimant worked overtime, number of hours and a preview of his work day would have rendered to claim credible. The claimant threw this figure to the court to award without a solid basis and the court declines the invitation.
Copies of the two pages under the title ‘EXTREME CENTRE LIMITED’ Time Management for Staff 30 th October 2017 MONDAY and 1 st NOVEMBER 2017 WEDNESDAY lacked authentication and context as the claimant provided no evidence as to what the two pages related to and whom the persons whose names appeared therein were.
In the court’s view, the claim for overtime was not proved. To establish the claim for Kshs.2,304,904 as overtime pay would undoubtedly require substantial documentary evidence which the claimant did not provide. The prayers declined.
On house allowance, it is clear that under section 31 of the Employment Act where an employer does not proved housing, it is required to provide reasonable amount to enable the employee secure a residence or pay a consolidated salary which encompasses housing allowance.
It is clear that the claimant’s employment contract did not specify his salary but the parties appear to have agreed how much he would be paid and does not appear to have had any complaint until after 2021.
Regrettably, there was agreement on house allowance or that any was outstanding. The claimant’s witness statement is clear that his salary was Kshs.131,380 per month and did not indicate that it was exclusive of housing allowance. The Memorandum of Claim had a similar figure.
The sum of Kshs.2,593, 147 claimed as house allowance lacked particulars or supportive evidence as the written witness statement had no details of the claim.
How, for instance was the amount arrived at?
In Jackson K. Kiptoo v Attorney General (2009) KLR 657, the Court of Appeal held:
“…the degree of certainty and particularity of proof required depends on the circumstances and the nature of acts complained of.”
Similarly, in Muriithi v My Beaty Transporter Ltd & 2 others (2025) KECA 516 (KLR) the Court of Appeal held:
“While it is trite that damages ought to be proved and it is not enough to simply throw figures at the court saying “this is what I lost, award it to me”
The claim for house allowance was unproven and it is declined.
NHIF and NSSF were and remain statutory deductions from employee salaries which are mandatory for salaried employees and must be remitted to the relevant statutory body. The National Health Insurance Fund and its successor Social Health Insurance Fund and the National Social Security Fund are managed by Boards of Trustees or a board with administrative powers to ensure that monies deducted from an employee is remitted to the relevant body.
The same principle applies to income and corporation tax. The employer is required to remit the sum to the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) and cannot be returned to the employee by the employer under any circumstance. Deducted but unremitted statutory dues ought to be remitted to the statutorily defined body.
The pray for unremitted or unpoad NHIF and NSSF deductions is declined.
Concerning the claim for general damages for unfair treatment after resignation, no egregious conduct was established against the 1`st Respondent or loss suffered by the claimant after resignation.
The claim lacked particulars and it is declined.
The claimant is entitled to a Certificate of Service by dint of the provisions of section 51 of the Employment Act.
In conclusion, judgment is entered in favour of the claimant against the 1 st respondent in the following terms:
(a) Salary owing as at December 2021 Kshs.2,237,878.00
(b) Unpaid salary for January and February 2022 Kshs.150,132.00
(c) Gratuity Kshs.3,213,421.00
Total Kshs.5,601,431.00
(d) Certificate of service
(e) Costs of the suit at ½ scale
For the avoidance of doubt all other claims are dismissed.
Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI ON THIS 30 th JULY, 2026.
DR. JACOB GAKERI
JUDGE
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 15 th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21 st 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 has 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.
DR. JACOB GAKERI
JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
ELRC CAUSE NO E428 OF 2022
(Before Hon. Justice Dr. Jacob Gakeri)
PATRICK S. MUGO..………………………………………………………...….CLAIMANT
VERSUS
TECHNICAL INSTITUTE GROUP OF SCHOOLS……………..1 ST RESPONDENT
KULDIP SINGH ……………………………………………….……..2 ND RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The claimant commenced the instant suit on 21 st June 2022 vide a Memorandum of Claim dated 20 th June 2022. The claimant’s case is that he was employed by the 1 st Respondent on 9 th July 2001 as an Inspector of Schools and doubled up as Operations Directors and Administrator for several schools and served diligently until February 2022 when he resigned after according the 1 st respondent a one (1) month’s notice.
The claimant averred that by the date of separation his salary was Kshs.131,380.00 and his dues owed by the 1 st Respondent were still outstanding, including salary arrears, unpaid salary, gratuity, accumulated terminal leave, overtime, house allowance unpaid NHIF deductions and unpaid NSSF deductions.
The claimant prays for:
(a) Terminal dues of Kshs.12,236,100 comprising of –
(i) salary arrears Kshs.2,237,878.00
(ii) Salary for January and February 2022 Kshs.150,132.00
(iii) Gratuity as agreed Kshs.3,213,421.00
(iv) Accumulated terminal leave Kshs.1,407,792.00
(v) Overtime Kshs.2,304,904.00
(vi) House allowance Kshs.2,593,147.00
(vii) Unpaid NHIF deductions Kshs.16,800.00
(viii) Unpaid NSSF deductions Kshs.312,026.00
(b) Genera damages for unfair treatment arising from the resignation.
(c) Certificate of service
(d) Costs of the suit and interest on (a) and (b) above.
(e) Any other relief the court may deem fit to grant.
Respondent’s case
By a response dated 20 th July 2022, the 1 st respondent stated that it was not a legal entity capable of being sued and the claimant had no cause of action again the respondents and the claim against the 2 nd Respondent offended the principal in Salomon v Salomon & Co. Ltd (1897 ) AC 22and the claim was for dismissal. The respondent denied frustrating the claimant or that his salary was Kshs.131,380.00. They denied owing the claimant anything and did not file a witness statement. The claimant’s reply to the Respondent’s Response dated 22 nd February 2023 raised no new issue.
Subsequently, vide a Notice of Motion dated 5 th December 2023, the Respondents counsel sought the striking out of the claim against the 2 nd Respondent and the court did so vide a ruling delivered on 17 th May 2024, which the claimant appealed against. There was no record of the outcome of the appeal.
The record is also unclear as to whether the Respondents motion to amend the Response to the Memorandum of claim was prosecuted. The Respondent prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
During the hearing on 23 rd June, 2026, the claimant adopted his witness statement and the Respondent’s witness was absent. Hearing was declared closed and directions on the filing and exchange of submissions were issued with a mention slated for 27 th July 2026.
When the court retired to prepare this judgment, none of the parties had filed submissions and none were considered.
Documents on record reveal that the 1 st Respondent employed the claimant as an Inspector of Schools effective 9 th July 2001 and the schools under the 1 st Respondent were;
Glad Toto Nursery Primary School – Pangani Agoi Road
Guru Nanak Secondary School – Hombe Road.
Gateway Boys Boarding High School – Thika Road
St. Edward High School Ngara Arcade – Ngara Road
Hill Top Boarding Primary School – Limuru Road, Tigoni
Technical Institute, Moktar Daddah Street – Shal Mansion Building Nairobi.
The Appointment letter was signed by the 2 nd Respondent as DIRECTOR. It is discernible that the claimant served diligently until he resigned vide letter dated 31 st January 2022 addressed to the 2 nd Respondent who accepted the resignation belatedly vide letter dated 1 st March 2022 by which date the claimant had already handed over as the letter acknowledged and the only outstanding issue was final dues.
Documents provided by the claimant further revealed that by letter dated 14 th January 2021 the claimant had demanded salary arrears amounting to Kshs.999,169 as parties had agreed on 19 th October 2020 in writing.
The claimant was additionally claiming the unpaid salary for October November and December 2020 amounting to Kshs.337,826.00. By that letter the claimant was demanding the sum of Kshs.2,237,878.00 owing to an underpayment of salary for one (1) year.
Similarly, by a written agreement dated 19 th October 2020 the claimant and the 2 nd respondent had agreed that the claimant would receive gratuity of Kshs.3,067,956 for the 18 years served. Although the claimant averred that his resignation was actuated by frustration by the Respondents, he did not provide particulars of the alleged frustration or allege that he was constructively dismissed.
More significantly, the claimant’s resignation letter dated 31 st January 2022 made no reference to any form of frustration or breach of any fundamental term of the contract of employment. The letter did not envince an employee who had no alternative but to leave. He appreciated the opportunity accorded by the 1 st Respondents and wished them success.
The fact that he accorded the 1 st Respondent the requisite one (1) month’s notice underline the fact that there was no fundamental breach of the contract of employment.
The claim is exclusively on outstanding dues.
In support of his case, the claimant attached copies phone messages from and to unidentified cell phone numbers and no certificate of electronic evidence was annexed as required by Section 106B of the Evidence Act and thus inadmissible as evidence.
The only issue for determination is whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.
The court notes that since the 1 st Respondent did not file a witness statement or list and bundle of documents and had no witness testified, its averments in its Reply to the Memorandum of Claim remained mere averments as opposed to evidence. And had no evidential value.
However, the fact that the 1 st Respondent was absent at the hearing did not lessen the claimant’s burden of proof as the mantra remained, he who alleges or asserts bears the burden of proving the allegations or assertions by dint of the provisions Section 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act.
Under Section 107 of the Act,
(1) Whenever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist.
(2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Section 108 of the Evidence Act captures the incidence of burden that;
The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.
In the instant case, the claimant bore the burden to demonstrate entitlement to all the reliefs sought. In Kirugi & another v Kabiya & another (1984) KLR 347, the Court of Appeal held thus:
“The burden was always on the plaintiff to prove his case on a balance of probabilities even if the case was heard as formal proof. Likewise failure by the defendant to contest the case does not absolve a plaintiff of the duty to prove the case to the required standard.”
Similarly, in Nicholus Kipkemoi Korir v Hatari Security Guards Ltd (2016) EKLR, Abuodah J stated as follows:
“This burden of proof does not become any less on the employee simply because the employer has not defended the claim or absent from trail. The claimant must still prove his or her case. It is therefore not enough for the employee to simply make allegations on oath or in pleadings which are not backed by any evidence and expect the court to find in his or her favour.”
See also Gichinga Kibutha v Caroline Nduku (2018) eKLR and Jackson Tuikoek v Stephen Tangus Salienyi & 2 others (2013) eKLR.
Significantly all the reliefs sought are in the nature of special damages which must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved as held in Hahn v Sinah (1985) KLR 716. See also Nimo Ali v Sagoo Radiators Ltd (2013) KECA 163 (KLR), Richard Okuku Oloo v South Nyanza Sugar Co. Ltd (2013) eKLR and Premier Dairy Ltd v Amarjit Singh Sagoo & another (2013) KECA 95 (KLR) among others.
Applying these principles to the facts of the instant case it is clear that while some of the claims have been evidentiary proven, others have not.
The claim for salary arrears is historical and dates back to the COVID 19 Pandemic 2020 and the 1 st Respondent had agreed to pay the same including underpayment of Kshs.894,792.00.
Relatedly, the agreement on payment of gratuity of Kshs.3,067,956 dated 19 th October 2020 was not contested. From the evidence on record, the claim for salary arrears and for January and February 2022 was proved as was the claim for gratuity.
Concerning terminal leave Kshs.1,407,792.00 the claimant adduced no evidence in support of the claim. Neither the written witness statement nor the oral testimony provided in court explained the circumstance in which the days claimed for accrued including how many they were. The figure of Kshs.1,407,792.00 lacks a factual basis and was unproven.
The claim for overtime suffers the same fate as neither the oral evidence adduced in court by the claimant nor his written witness statement contained the relevant particulars and supportive evidence. Evidence of when the claimant worked overtime, number of hours and a preview of his work day would have rendered to claim credible. The claimant threw this figure to the court to award without a solid basis and the court declines the invitation.
Copies of the two pages under the title ‘EXTREME CENTRE LIMITED’ Time Management for Staff 30 th October 2017 MONDAY and 1 st NOVEMBER 2017 WEDNESDAY lacked authentication and context as the claimant provided no evidence as to what the two pages related to and whom the persons whose names appeared therein were.
In the court’s view, the claim for overtime was not proved. To establish the claim for Kshs.2,304,904 as overtime pay would undoubtedly require substantial documentary evidence which the claimant did not provide. The prayers declined.
On house allowance, it is clear that under section 31 of the Employment Act where an employer does not proved housing, it is required to provide reasonable amount to enable the employee secure a residence or pay a consolidated salary which encompasses housing allowance.
It is clear that the claimant’s employment contract did not specify his salary but the parties appear to have agreed how much he would be paid and does not appear to have had any complaint until after 2021.
Regrettably, there was agreement on house allowance or that any was outstanding. The claimant’s witness statement is clear that his salary was Kshs.131,380 per month and did not indicate that it was exclusive of housing allowance. The Memorandum of Claim had a similar figure.
The sum of Kshs.2,593, 147 claimed as house allowance lacked particulars or supportive evidence as the written witness statement had no details of the claim.
How, for instance was the amount arrived at?
In Jackson K. Kiptoo v Attorney General (2009) KLR 657, the Court of Appeal held:
“…the degree of certainty and particularity of proof required depends on the circumstances and the nature of acts complained of.”
Similarly, in Muriithi v My Beaty Transporter Ltd & 2 others (2025) KECA 516 (KLR) the Court of Appeal held:
“While it is trite that damages ought to be proved and it is not enough to simply throw figures at the court saying “this is what I lost, award it to me”
The claim for house allowance was unproven and it is declined.
NHIF and NSSF were and remain statutory deductions from employee salaries which are mandatory for salaried employees and must be remitted to the relevant statutory body. The National Health Insurance Fund and its successor Social Health Insurance Fund and the National Social Security Fund are managed by Boards of Trustees or a board with administrative powers to ensure that monies deducted from an employee is remitted to the relevant body.
The same principle applies to income and corporation tax. The employer is required to remit the sum to the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) and cannot be returned to the employee by the employer under any circumstance. Deducted but unremitted statutory dues ought to be remitted to the statutorily defined body.
The pray for unremitted or unpoad NHIF and NSSF deductions is declined.
Concerning the claim for general damages for unfair treatment after resignation, no egregious conduct was established against the 1`st Respondent or loss suffered by the claimant after resignation.
The claim lacked particulars and it is declined.
The claimant is entitled to a Certificate of Service by dint of the provisions of section 51 of the Employment Act.
In conclusion, judgment is entered in favour of the claimant against the 1 st respondent in the following terms:
(a) Salary owing as at December 2021 Kshs.2,237,878.00
(b) Unpaid salary for January and February 2022 Kshs.150,132.00
(c) Gratuity Kshs.3,213,421.00
Total Kshs.5,601,431.00
(d) Certificate of service
(e) Costs of the suit at ½ scale
For the avoidance of doubt all other claims are dismissed.
Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI ON THIS 30 th JULY, 2026.
DR. JACOB GAKERI
JUDGE
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 15 th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21 st 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 has 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.
DR. JACOB GAKERI
JUDGE
Page 2 of 2