Kagocha v Multimedia University of Kenya & 11 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E222 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 168 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court in Nairobi ordered a university to hand over promotion documents within 30 days but refused to block Vice Chancellor recruitment, stressing that whoever alleges must prove their claims.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether summons to produce documents under Order 16 Rules 1 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules should issue
Granted - the Respondents did not oppose the production order, so the Petitioner is entitled to the documents as prayed
Order 16 Rules 1 and 6 empower the court to summon persons to give evidence or produce documents. The Petitioner sought production of promotion committee records, minutes, score sheets and related documents alleged to be in the custody of the 1st to 7th Respondents. The Respondents filed no submissions addressing this head of the application, leaving the averments on custody uncontroverted. The court therefore ordered production within 30 days.
Whether conservatory orders barring the Vice Chancellor and Deputy Vice Chancellor recruitment should issue
Declined - the Petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof and did not establish the Munya principles for conservatory orders
The court applied sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act, holding that whoever alleges must prove the facts asserted. The Petitioner did not demonstrate how the recruitment of the Vice Chancellor and Deputy Vice Chancellor related to her promotion grievance, nor did she adduce evidence of wrongdoing. Without evidence supporting prayers 3 and 4, the court could not grant the interlocutory bar on the recruitment process.
Whether the 1st Respondent should be barred from funding legal representation for Respondents sued in their personal capacities
Declined - the court will not interfere with parties' choice of legal representation, and the vicarious liability posture was doubtful
The court found no basis to restrain a party from instructing counsel. It further noted that the individual Respondents sued personally were not the Petitioner's employer, and that while Respondents 2 to 12 might be regarded as agents of the University Council, extending vicarious liability that far was questionable. The Council itself, the proper legal persona for the university, was not joined as a party.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking production of documents under Order 16 must show the documents are in the possession of the person required to produce them and that they relate to the suit; where the Respondents do not controvert custody, production will be ordered
- He who alleges must prove; the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the facts under sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act
Court orders
#- 1.The Petitioner to be availed the requested documents within 30 days to enable her to set down the main petition for hearing if she so wishes
- 2.Prayers 3, 4 and 5 of the application declined
- 3.Costs in the main Petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kagocha v Multimedia University of Kenya & 11 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E222 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 168 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). not_stated_in_judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/168/eng@2025-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.