Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOther· [2025] KEELRC 1479 (KLR)

Nyaga v Langfields Systems Limited & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 262 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 1479 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
23 May 2025
AMAnna Ngibuini Mwaure
1,309 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nakuru employment court allowed late-filed defence witnesses to testify, ruling that objecting too late contradicts Kenya's constitutional demand for substantive justice over technicalities.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This interlocutory ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru (Mwaure J) determined a single question: whether the Respondents should be allowed to call their witnesses. The Claimant, who sued for general damages, special damages of Kshs.22,500,000, costs and interest by a Memorandum of Claim filed in June 2017, objected after closing his case on 23rd September 2024 that the Respondents had not filed their documents in accordance with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules and therefore had no right to call witnesses. The Respondents' counsel (Kinyanjui) countered that their response was filed in August 2017, notice was given under Order 7 rule 8 to avail documents, and their bundles and witness statements had been on record since October 2021 without any objection from the Claimant at numerous pre-trial conferences. Applying Article 159(2)(b) and (d) of the Constitution and sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, and the Court of Appeal authorities of Hellen Chemeli Kenduiywa and Said Sweilem Gheithan Saanum, the court held that justice must be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities. While acknowledging that the Respondents should have sought leave to file documents out of time, the court found the objection raised too late, especially as the Claimant had referred to the Respondents' evidence during his own case. The court allowed the Respondents' witnesses to testify and fixed further hearing for 25th June 2025. No costs order was made. The main claim remains pending.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondents should be permitted to call their witnesses notwithstanding alleged late filing of documents under Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Holding

The Respondents' witnesses were allowed to testify. The court held that procedural technicalities should not bar a party from the corridors of justice, that the Respondents had filed their response and witness statements well before the objection was raised, and that the objection came too late.

Reasoning

The court noted that the Respondents filed their Memorandum of Response in August 2017, gave notice under Order 7 rule 8 to avail documents 15 days before pre-trial conference, and filed their bundles in October 2021. The Claimant never objected at any pre-trial conference and even referred to the Respondents' evidence during his own case. Guided by Article 159(2)(b) and (d) of the Constitution and sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, the court found it just to allow the witnesses, observing that while leave to file documents out of time should have been sought, technicalities should not defeat substantive justice.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who has not objected to the late filing of documents at pre-trial conferences cannot raise that objection for the first time after closing their own case
  • Article 159(2)(d) requires courts to eschew undue procedural technicalities and not lock parties out of the corridors of justice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondents' witnesses are allowed to testify in the matter
  2. 2.The case to proceed for further hearing on 25th June 2025
  3. 3.Signed copy of the ruling to be availed to each party upon payment of Court fees

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(1), 159(2)(a), (b), (d) and (e); Article 48
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A and 1B
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 7 rule 8; Order 11; Order 21 Rule 1

Cases cited (2)

  • Hellen Chemeli Kenduiywa V Mathew Kenduiywa & Another
    [2021] KECA 567 (KLR)
  • Said Sweilem Gheithan Saanum V Commissioner of Lands (being sued through Attorney General) & 5 others
    [2015] KECA 284 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction (Memorandum of Claim in an employment cause); Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution applied

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyaga v Langfields Systems Limited & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 262 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 1479 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1479/eng@2025-05-23

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