Jackline Chpkemoi Kimeto v Shafi Grewal Kaka & 3 others [2019] KEELRC 2392 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the emails at pages 607-611 and 621-623 were illegally obtained
They were illegally obtained because the Claimant was terminated in March 2015 yet the emails are of April-May 2015, were neither sent nor copied to her, and she gave no evidence of how she obtained them
The court found the Claimant's employment terminated in March 2015 while the internal emails date from April and May 2015 and were exchanged among the Respondents' officers. Since the Claimant was neither recipient nor addressee and adduced no evidence of lawful access, the documents were illegally obtained and were expunged following Baseline Architects and Susan Wariara Kariuki.
Whether the documents at pages 612-617 are privileged
They are privileged communications between the Respondent and its counsel concerning a former employee who is not the Claimant
The court found the emails constituted negotiations for settlement between the Respondent and an advocate acting for a different former employee. Unless the Claimant proved she obtained them lawfully, they remain privileged. The court placed the burden of proving lawful acquisition on the Claimant and found none.
Whether the documents at pages 618-620 are privileged
They are covered by privileged information under Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act and cannot be used as evidence
These emails are between an advocate and client and constitute official communication among officers of the respondent. The court held they fall within privileged communication protected by the Evidence Act and are inadmissible as evidence by the Claimant.
Legal principles established
#- A court of law will not rely on documents that are improperly or illegally obtained
- Communication between an advocate and client is privileged under Section 134 of the Evidence Act and can only be produced under exceptional circumstances
Court orders
#- 1.Pages 607 to 623 of the Claimant's Supplementary List of Documents dated 19th October 2018 expunged from the Court record
- 2.The entire supplementary list and bundle of documents dated 19th October 2018 expunged from the record
- 3.Claimant directed to file a fresh list and bundle of documents excluding the impugned documents in compliance with the order
- 4.Deputy Registrar directed to physically remove the bundle from the record and return it to the claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 50(4) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Rule 17(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Beckwith v Mara Wildlife Ballon Services Limited (Cause E219 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2713 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2713 (KLR)3 Oct 2025
- Manoti v Kenya Revenue Authority (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E370 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 1886 (KLR)[2024] KEELRC 1886 (KLR)12 Jul 2024distinguished
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jackline Chpkemoi Kimeto v Shafi Grewal Kaka & 3 others [2019] KEELRC 2392 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Notice of Motion dated 14th December 2018 in the main cause (Employment and Labour Relations Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2392/eng@2019-02-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.