Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedEmployment and Labour Relations Court Claim (Memorandum of Claim dated 19th December 2024); Notice of Motion dated 29th November 2024· [2025] KEELRC 2462 (KLR)

Kaala v Seyani Brothers & Company (K) Limited & 3 others (Cause E988 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2462 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
19 September 2025
ANAgnes Kitiku Nzei
2,734 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court refused to order workplace inspections and records checks before trial, confirming claimants must prove their own employment cases.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, formerly employed by the 1st Respondent as a Carpentry Works Supervisor from 3rd September 2003 until his employment was allegedly unfairly terminated on 22nd November 2021, filed a Memorandum of Claim together with a Notice of Motion dated 29th November 2024 seeking interlocutory compelling orders before the hearing of the main claim. He sought orders compelling the 4th Respondent (DOSHS) to designate an Occupational and Health Officer to inspect the workplace and a Medical Practitioner to conduct specified medical examinations on him; compelling the Commissioner General of KRA to issue notice for PAYE returns; and compelling the Managing Director of NSSF to appoint a Compliance Officer to inspect contribution records, all for the period September 2003 to November 2021. The application was made under Order 10 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Act, invoking provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Income Tax (PAYE) Rules and the National Social Security Fund Act. The 1st, 2nd and 4th Respondents opposed the application in replying affidavits, contending compliance with their respective statutory obligations, absence of any nexus between alleged hazards and the Claimant's health, and that the orders were premature, speculative and an abuse of process. The 3rd Respondent filed no response. The Court held that once a Claimant's pleadings are denied, the suit must go to full trial where the Claimant bears the burden of proof under Section 107(1) of the Evidence Act, and that granting the orders would amount to the Court assisting the Claimant to gather and compile evidence from the defendants after accrual of the cause of action. Noting the absence of any current employer-employee relationship or ongoing exposure, the Court found the orders not capable of being granted and dismissed the Notice of Motion, with costs in the suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether pre-hearing compelling orders against Respondents amount to the Court assisting a party to gather evidence

Holding

Yes - such orders would improperly assist the Claimant to compile evidence from the defendants after accrual of the cause of action and institution of the suit

Reasoning

The court reasoned that where a Claimant's pleadings are denied, the matter must proceed to full trial where the Claimant bears the burden of proof under Section 107(1) of the Evidence Act. Compelling Respondents to produce evidence before hearing would subvert the burden of proof and amount to the Court marshalling the Claimant's case. The proper remedy for insufficient detail in pleadings is particulars, not evidence-gathering orders.

p. 6
02

Whether retrospective inspection and medical examination orders can issue where no current employment relationship or exposure exists

Holding

No - the orders were not capable of being granted because there is no ongoing employer-employee relationship or current exposure to a hazardous work environment

Reasoning

The court noted the employment relationship ended, the cause of action had long accrued, and there was no ongoing or possible exposure to a hazardous work environment. The orders sought related to a period spanning 18 years over which compliance had already been verified, and no adverse findings had been made during prior inspections.

p. 6
03

Whether the Court may be guided by the Civil Procedure Rules on procedural issues where the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024 are silent

Holding

Yes - the Court may be guided by the Civil Procedure Rules where its own Rules of Procedure are silent

Reasoning

The court observed that under Order 2 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, a Court can order a party to provide particulars of their defence. The court stated that it may be guided by the Civil Procedure Rules on any procedural issue where the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024 are silent.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Once matters pleaded by a Claimant are denied by the Respondent, the suit must go to full trial for the Claimant to prove his case
  • The burden of proving facts pleaded lies on the party asserting them
  • A court cannot assist a party to gather and compile evidence from the opposing party after accrual of the cause of action and institution of suit

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 29th November 2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application shall be in the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Occupational Safety and Health ActSections 32, 32K, 23(5), 44, 45(6), 21, 22
  • Factory and Other Places of Work (Medical Examination) Rules 2005Rule 4(1)
  • Income Tax Act (Cap. 470)Rule 11 of the Income Tax (PAYE) Rules
  • National Social Security Fund Act (Cap. 258)Section 17
  • Work Injury Benefits Act 2007Sections 22(5), 28, 30
  • Evidence ActSection 107(1)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 25
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 10 Rule 8; Order 2 Rule 10(2)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024Rule 40
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 31 and 35

Cases cited (1)

  • William Kivati Ndunga – vs – Seyani Brothers and Company Limited (Milimani CMCC No. 8396 of 2019)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024, with recourse to the Civil Procedure Rules and Civil Procedure Act on procedural issues where the ELRC Rules are silent

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kaala v Seyani Brothers & Company (K) Limited & 3 others (Cause E988 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2462 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Employment and Labour Relations Court Claim (Memorandum of Claim dated 19th December 2024); Notice of Motion dated 29th November 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2462/eng@2025-09-19

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