Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially Allowed· [2025] KEELRC 264 (KLR)

Ogwaro v SGA Security Limited (Cause E871 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 264 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
31 January 2025
3,115 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court ruled that documents an employer gives to an employee belong to that employee and can be shared in court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
In this interlocutory application dated 14th March 2024, the Respondent sought to expunge documents filed by the Claimant on 16th October 2023 - being the resignation letter, acknowledgment letter and certificate of release of a former employee, Zachariah Magadi Isanda - on the grounds that they were illegally obtained, breached the former employee's right to privacy and the Data Protection Act, and violated article 50(4) of the Constitution. The documents had been filed pursuant to the court's direction on 29th September 2023 that parties file evidence on the single issue of gratuity. The Respondent also sought leave to amend its statement of Response to include a counterclaim of Kshs. 6,553,326.96/- allegedly lost through the Claimant's collusion, the investigations having been concluded after the suit was instituted. The Claimant opposed, stating the documents were given willingly by the former employee himself. The court held that once the Respondent issued the documents to the former employee they became his private documents which he was free to share, that no right was violated, and that following the John Muriithi authority the evidence was admissible as it was relevant and would not render the trial unfair; the expungement prayer failed and the documents were deemed properly on record. On the amendment prayer, relying on Rule 14(6) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2016 and the Joseph Ochieng principles, the court granted leave to amend and file the counterclaim, holding it was within the three-year limitation period under section 90 of the Employment Act, with corresponding leave to the Claimant to respond. The application thus partially succeeded.

Key legal issues

#
01

Admissibility of documents obtained from a third-party former employee who shared them willingly

Holding

The documents are admissible and will not be expunged; no right was violated and their admission does not render the trial unfair.

Reasoning

The court found that once the Respondent issued the documents to the former employee they became his private documents which he could share freely. Applying article 50(4) and the John Muriithi decision that illegally obtained evidence is admissible so long as it is relevant and does not affect the fairness of the trial, the court held that there was no violation of any right since the documents were obtained willingly, and they were relevant to proving the Claimant's assertion that other officers were paid gratuity.

p. 5
02

Whether the Respondent should be granted leave to amend its statement of Response and file a counterclaim for Kshs. 6,553,326.96/-

Holding

Leave to amend is granted; the counterclaim will be determined at the hearing and the Claimant has corresponding leave to respond.

Reasoning

Relying on Rule 14(6) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2016 and the principles in Joseph Ochieng & 2 Others v First National Bank of Chicago, the court held that amendments may be made at any stage in good faith where no uncompensatable injustice results. The investigations revealing the loss were conducted after the suit was filed, and the counterclaim fell within the three-year limitation period under section 90 of the Employment Act since the cause of action arose in November 2021.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Once an employer issues documents to a former employee, those documents become the employee's private documents and the employee is free to share them as he wishes; such documents obtained willingly are not illegally obtained evidence.
  • Under article 50(4) of the Constitution, evidence obtained in violation of a right is excluded only if its admission would render the trial unfair or be detrimental to the administration of justice; relevant evidence obtained willingly from its owner is admissible.
  • Amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings provided it is made in good faith, timeously, and no injustice incapable of compensation by costs is caused to the other party, and the other party has a corresponding right to amend.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent's application dated 14th March 2024 is dismissed on the issue of expunging the Claimant's documents; the documents are deemed properly on record
  2. 2.The Respondent is granted leave to file an amended Response to Claim and a Counterclaim against the Claimant for the loss of Kshs. 6,553,326.96/-
  3. 3.The Claimant is granted corresponding leave to respond to the Counterclaim
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and the Constitution (application brought under articles 27(1), 31, 35 and 50(4) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and the Data Protection Act No. 24 of 2019)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ogwaro v SGA Security Limited (Cause E871 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 264 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/264/eng@2025-01-31

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