SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Nzomo v Lukenya Gateaway Limited & 4 others (Appeal E011 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 3737 (KLR) (17 December 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KEELRC 3737 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
3737
Citation
[2025] KEELRC 3737 (KLR)
Decided
17 December 2025
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeAppealPostureAppeal from the Judgment and Decree of the Hon. D.Kuto (M)CoramJW KELI
The appeal was allowed with costs.

Facts

The Appellant, Mary Mwikali Nzomo, was dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree of the Hon. D.Kuto (M) delivered on 11th October 2023 in Mavoko CMEL Suit No. E585 of 2019. The Appellant sought orders allowing the appeal, setting aside the Judgment and Decree, and awarding costs.

Issues

  • Whether the Appeal is competent in the absence of a certified copy of the decree.
  • Whether the learned Magistrate erred in law and facts by disregarding the Plainti's evidence as regards procedure for purchase of goods without any evidence to the contrary by the Defendant.
  • Whether the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact by disregarding the Defendant's witness evidence and testimony that the search on sta had been for interns unspeci ed stolen properties as opposed to bread, bread rolls and tea leaves, thereby failing to reach a finding that there was no allegation or proof of stolen bread, bread rolls or tea leaves.
  • Whether the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact by finding that the Defendant had followed the procedure for dismissal.
  • Whether the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact by finding that the Defendant had properly calculated and fully paid the Plainti her terminal dues.
  • Whether the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to find that the allegations of theft against the Plainti which were maintained up to the time of the hearing without any proof thereof were defamatory.
  • Whether the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to analyze and/or consider the evidence, testimony and submissions by the Plainti.
  • Whether the learned Magistrate erred in law to fault the prayers as pleaded by the Plainti.

Reasoning

The appeal was allowed with costs as the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact by disregarding the Plainti's evidence as regards procedure for purchase of goods without any evidence to the contrary by the Defendant.

Outcome

Appeal allowed with costs

Orders

  • The appeal be allowed with costs.
  • The entire Judgment and Decree of Mr. D. Kuto (Magistrate) delivered on 11th October 2023 be set aside and the court do make such orders as it may deem appropriate.
  • The costs of this Appeal be awarded to the Appellant.
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case