Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELRC 304 (KLR)

Kisuli v Kilimani Junior School (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E206 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 304 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
5 February 2025
JKJ.W. Keli
2,006 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court ordered a school to hand over clock-in records for an unpaid-leave claim, but refused to release other documents that were not tied to the dispute.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an interlocutory ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi on the Claimant's Request for Production of Documents and Notice to Produce directed at the Director, Kilimani Junior Academy. The Claimant, a former Principal who resigned in 2020, sought terminal dues of KES 1,557,323.22 comprising unpaid salary, unauthorised salary deductions, untaken leave and unpaid fuel reimbursements. She sought production of Holiday Teachers Duty Books, Clock In Books, Class Registers and Teachers Lesson Books for the period 29th November 2018 to 29th September 2020, contending they were needed to prove her presence at work and workload. The Respondent opposed, stating the Duty Books and Lesson Books never existed as required documents, the Clock In Book was taken by the Claimant herself and partially irrelevant given the shift to online learning, and the Class Registers contained sensitive pupils' information. Relying on section 22 of the Civil Procedure Act and the principles in Halsbury's Laws of England, Oracle Productions and Concord Insurance, the court held that discovery is limited to matters in contention and relevance is tested by the pleadings. The court found only the Clock In Books relevant, particularly to the disputed untaken leave days, and noted the Respondent had already produced extracts. Discovery was ordered only for the Clock In Books, to be made on oath and delivered at least 14 days before pre-trial, with costs in the cause and pre-trial set for 3rd March 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether discovery should be granted for the documents sought in the Notice to Produce

Holding

Discovery granted only for the Clock In Books, which were relevant to the disputed untaken leave days; the other documents were not justified as relevant

Reasoning

The court applied section 22 of the Civil Procedure Act and the principle, drawn from Halsbury's Laws of England, Oracle Productions and Concord Insurance, that discovery exists to level the litigation field and eliminate surprise, but must be limited to matters in contention. Relevance is gauged by the pleadings. The claim was for terminal dues including untaken leave, so the clock-in books were relevant; the Respondent had already produced extracts (HJJB-1), and the remaining documents were neither justified nor, per the Respondent, in its possession.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Discovery is limited to matters in contention and relevance is tested by the pleadings or particulars provided
  • The court may order discovery, inspection, production, impounding and return of documents under section 22 of the Civil Procedure Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent shall make discovery on oath and deliver to the Claimant, at least 14 days before the pre-trial date, copies of the clock in books for the period 29th November 2018 to 29th September 2020
  2. 2.Costs of the application in the cause
  3. 3.Pre-trial on 3rd March 2025

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21Section 22
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 11; Orders 4 and 7; Order 14

Cases cited (5)

  • Oracle Productions Ltd v Decapture Limited & 3 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Concord Insurance Co Limited v Nic Bank Limited
    [2013] eKLR
  • Ramji Meghji v Kisii University
    [2016] eKLR
  • Kahumbu v National Bank of Kenya Limited
    [2003] 2 E.A 475
  • Oluoch v Charagu
    [2003] 2 E.A 649
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 22 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 of the Laws of Kenya

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kisuli v Kilimani Junior School (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E206 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 304 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/304/eng@2025-02-05

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