Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherNot stated in extract· [2014] KEELRC 808 (KLR)

Transport & Allied Workers Union (K) v Societe Internationale De Tele Communication Aeronautiques (SITA) [2014] KEELRC 808 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
21 February 2014
LNLinnet Ndolo
916 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Industrial Court ruled that privacy objections cannot block confidential employment documents when they are needed for a fair hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Industrial Court at Nairobi, delivered by Linnet Ndolo J on 21 February 2014, dealt with an interlocutory dispute over the admissibility of documents in a claim founded on the alleged unlawful redundancy of three grievants, Henry Nyabuto Nyarango, Wanjira Waira Kamau and Kennedy Nyariba Basweti. The Claimant sought to rely on settlement agreements with six former employees, exhibited at pages 30-44 of the Statement of Claim, and had issued a notice to produce under Section 69 of the Evidence Act. The Respondent objected, contending that the documents were private and confidential and protected by Article 31(c) & (d) of the Constitution, and further that the Evidence Act did not apply to the Industrial Court. The Claimant countered that the rights under Article 31 are not absolute, that the documents were necessary to discharge its burden of proving the Respondent's past practice on statutory redundancy obligations, and invoked Articles 35 and 50 on access to information and fair hearing. The court held that neither the Claimant's Article 35 right nor the Respondent's Article 31 right is absolute, both being subject to limitation under Article 24. Balancing the competing rights, the court concluded that admission of the documents was necessary for a fair determination of the case and overruled the Respondent's objection. The extract contains no costs order and no case authorities cited.

Key legal issues

#
01

Admissibility of private and confidential documents protected by Article 31(c) & (d)

Holding

The privacy rights are not absolute and must be balanced against the Claimant's Article 35 right of access to information and fair hearing entitlement; production was permitted

Reasoning

The court identified a clash between the Respondent's Article 31 privacy rights and the Claimant's Article 35 access-to-information right, both subject to limitation under Article 24. Neither right being absolute, the court weighed the competing interests and found that admission of the settlement agreements was necessary for a fair determination of the redundancy claim, and overruled the objection.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Neither the right of access to information under Article 35 nor the right to privacy under Article 31 is absolute; both are subject to limitation under Article 24
  • Where documents are necessary for a fair determination of a case, a privacy objection may be overruled after balancing the competing rights

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent's objection to production of documents exhibited at pages 30-44 of the Statement of Claim is overruled
  2. 2.Admission of the documents in issue permitted for fair determination of the case

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 31(c) & (d)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 35(1)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 50
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 25
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 24
  • Evidence ActSection 69
Jurisdiction invoked
Industrial Court jurisdiction over the employment claim (Article 162(2) context; the ruling itself decides admissibility of documents)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Transport & Allied Workers Union (K) v Societe Internationale De Tele Communication Aeronautiques (SITA) [2014] KEELRC 808 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Not stated in extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/808/eng@2014-02-21

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.