Ogutu v Kenya Airports Authority (Cause E561 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1411 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court

15 May 2025

LNLINNET NDOLO

1,228 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

Kenya's Employment Court allowed late-filed documents exposing possible forgery, showing courts will bend timelines when new evidence emerges from court-ordered processes and nobody is prejudiced.

What this practically means

Executive summary

This is a ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi (Linnet Ndolo, Judge) on the Respondent's Motion dated 10th February 2025. The Claimant had testified and closed his case on 30th July 2024, when the Court directed that he proceed with the clearance process at the Respondent's offices to access his terminal benefits. In the course of that clearance, the Respondent alleged that a letter purportedly issued by Kenya Commercial Bank to confirm the settlement of the Claimant's loan was a forgery, its signatory not being a Bank employee. The Respondent therefore sought leave to file additional documents, a further witness statement, and to recall the Claimant for further cross examination on the documents' authenticity. The Claimant opposed the application as an abuse of process and an afterthought, asserting that filing of documents had been closed at pre-trial and that he was a stranger to the disputed letters. The Respondent relied on Johana Kipekmoi Too v Hellen Tum and Raindrops Limited v County Government of Kilifi, which set out the principles governing re-opening of a case. The Court applied those principles, finding that the documents emerged from a court-ordered clearance process and therefore could not have been obtained earlier, that the allegations of forgery were serious and required evidence, and that no prejudice would be suffered by any party. The application was allowed; the documents were admitted, the Respondent was granted leave to file a supplementary witness statement limited to this issue, the Claimant was to be recalled for further cross examination on this issue only, and costs were made costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

Whether leave to adduce additional evidence and recall the Claimant should be granted

Holding

The application succeeded because the documents emerged from a clearance process ordered by the Court during proceedings, and serious questions about their authenticity required evidence

Reasoning

The Court applied the Raindrops Limited principles: the discretion is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously without prejudicing the opposite party. The documents were availed in a court-ordered clearance process, so they could not have been produced earlier, there was no inordinate delay or attempt to fill gaps, and the allegations of forgery were serious enough to warrant evidence. No prejudice to the Claimant was identified.

p. 3

Legal principles established

Additional evidence may be admitted outside procedural timelines where it could not have been produced earlier and no prejudice will be occasioned to the opposite party
The discretion to re-open a case must be exercised judiciously so as not to embarrass or prejudice the opposite party, and will not be granted where the evidence merely fills gaps or follows inordinate delay

Court orders

1.The Respondent's application dated 10th February 2025 is allowed
2.The documents attached to the application are admitted
3.Leave granted to the Respondent to file a supplementary witness statement limited to the issue of the documents' authenticity only
4.The Claimant to be recalled for further cross examination on this issue only
5.Costs of the application in the cause

Authorities

Cases cited (2)

Johana Kipekmoi Too v Hellen Tum
[2014] eKLR
Raindrops Limited v County Government of Kilifi
[2020] eKLR

Jurisdiction invoked: Inherent discretion of the Employment and Labour Relations Court to admit additional evidence and recall a witness in the course of a first-instance hearing

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ogutu v Kenya Airports Authority (Cause E561 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 1411 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E561 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1411/eng@2025-05-15

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