Lois Wanjiku Chiuri v Laikipia University & 3 others [2021] KEELRC 1274 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court ruled that employers must produce documents relevant to a dispute, but vague requests and private information will be refused or redacted.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Right of access to information under Article 35 of the Constitution
The applicant has a right of access to information held by the respondent, but this right is limited under Article 24 and by the Access to Information Act
The court set out Article 35(1)(a) and (b), which grants every citizen access to information held by the State or required for the exercise or protection of a right. It then noted that the right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable and justifiable limitation under Article 24 in an open and democratic society, balancing the applicant's need for documents against the respondent's confidentiality and privacy objections.
Production of confidential and privileged minutes
Confidential minutes relevant to the dispute may be produced with private portions concealed
The respondent objected that council and departmental minutes for July 2018 to January 2021 were confidential and privileged, containing internal affairs and student information. The court accepted the confidentiality concern but held it was not absolute: minutes relevant to the matter before court could be produced while concealing private parts. However, the general request for council minutes was denied as vague because the applicant did not identify which minutes were relevant.
Vague and unspecified requests for production
The court cannot order production of documents that are not specified with sufficient particularity
The respondent argued documents 5 and 12 were not known to it, document 6 was unspecified as to period and form, and documents 10 and 11 were publicly available on its website. The court agreed that document 6 was too vague to order production, required better particulars for items 5 and 12, and directed the respondent to supply the web address for items 10 and 11 rather than compelling direct production.
Legal principles established
#- An employer's confidentiality objection does not defeat production of minutes to the extent they concern matters relevant to the claim; relevant portions can be produced while concealing private parts
- It is for the applicant, not the respondent, to demonstrate the relevance of documents sought for production
Court orders
#- 1.Minutes in relation to the appointment of Associate Professor of Laikipia University for 17/1/2018 to be submitted to the applicant
- 2.Prayer for production of minutes of July 2018 to January 2021 denied as vague
- 3.Minutes requested under items 3 & 4 to be provided to the applicant at the relevant point in relation to the claim
- 4.Better and further particulars to be given by the applicant in relation to documents sought under items 5 & 12
- 5.Documents 7, 8 & 9 to be provided to the applicant as prayed
- 6.Respondents to provide the relevant web address where documents No. 10 & 11 can be accessed
- 7.Respondent to supply the information requested within 14 days
- 8.Costs of the application to be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 74(1)(2) of the Employment Act and Section 12 of the Labour Institutions Act No. 12 of 2007
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lois Wanjiku Chiuri v Laikipia University & 3 others [2021] KEELRC 1274 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1274/eng@2021-07-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.