Yoya v Kenyatta International Convention Center & 2 others; Mwaura (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E060 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 967 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court ruled that documents allegedly obtained improperly can still be used in court if they are relevant, especially when the case serves the public interest.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether documents allegedly unlawfully obtained should be expunged under Article 50(4) of the Constitution
The application to expunge was declined; admission of the documents would not render the trial unfair or compromise justice
The court noted the Petitioner conceded obtaining the documents but argued Article 50(4) excludes only evidence whose admission would render the trial unfair. Relying on the Ombija decision, the court held admissibility turns on relevance, not the manner of acquisition, and found no unfairness established.
Whether Section 37 of the Data Protection Act, 2019 renders the documents inadmissible
Section 37(1) applies only to commercial use of personal data; the impugned use was not commercial, so the section does not apply
The court quoted Section 37(1) and observed that its restriction bites only where personal data is used for commercial purposes. Since the Petitioner obtained and used the data for public-interest litigation on a public recruitment process, the statutory bar was inapplicable.
Whether the Petitioner's cross-application for production of recruitment documents should be granted
The cross-application was found superfluous but valid in respect of documents not already filed; costs in the Petition
Having held the impugned documents admissible, the court found the production application unnecessary as to documents already in the Petitioner's possession, but preserved it as valid for documents not yet filed, leaving costs to be determined in the Petition.
Legal principles established
#- Admissibility of evidence is determined by relevance, not by the manner in which it was obtained
- Section 37(1) of the Data Protection Act restricts use of personal data only for commercial purposes
- Article 50(4) excludes evidence obtained in violation of rights only where its admission would render the trial unfair or be detrimental to the administration of justice
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondents' application dated 12th June 2024 seeking expungement of documents is declined/dismissed
- 2.The Petitioner's cross-application dated 11th December 2024 is found superfluous but valid in respect of documents not already filed by the Petitioner
- 3.Costs of the applications shall be in the Petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Petition filed under Article 258(1) and (2)(c) of the Constitution; interlocutory applications under the court's inherent jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Yoya v Kenyatta International Convention Center & 2 others; Mwaura (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E060 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 967 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Petition dated 23rd April 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/967/eng@2025-03-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.