Kenya County Government Workers Union v County Government of Vihiga & 4 others (Cause E040 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2606 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused a union's late attempt to add documents after closing its case, warning against unfair last-minute evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Should the court allow the application and admit the supplementary list and copies of documents by the claimant into the record?
- 2.Who should meet the costs of the application?
Key legal issues
#Applicability of Civil Procedure Rules in the ELRC
The Civil Procedure Act and Rules do not apply to the ELRC unless the ELRC Rules specifically so provide, but wrong citation is not fatal where Article 159 and enabling provisions are invoked.
The court reasoned that the ELRC (Procedure) Rules are elaborate and adequate, and where they intend the Civil Procedure Rules to apply they say so expressly, citing Rules 63(8), 73 and 10(2). Because the claimant also relied on Article 159 of the Constitution and 'all other enabling provisions of the law', the erroneous reliance on Order 2 Rule 13 and Order 51 CPR did not doom the application; the court proceeded to determine it on the merits.
Whether supplementary documents may be filed after the claimant's case has closed
No. The application was dismissed because the claimant's case had closed, no explanation for the delay was offered, and admission would prejudice the respondents and negate expeditious disposal.
The court found that CW1 had testified and counsel had stated the claimant's case was closed on 4th March 2025; the 18th March date was for verification of the CBA, not further claimant hearing. No reason, including lack of due diligence, was offered for the late filing. Allowing the application would require letting the respondents file documents in reply, taking the matter back to the start and undermining Article 159 and Section 3 of the ELRC Act.
Legal principles established
#- Unless specifically stated in the ELRC Rules, the Civil Procedure Act and Civil Procedure Rules do not apply to the ELRC; however, citing wrong provisions does not render an application fatally defective where other enabling provisions are invoked
- Justice and fairness under Article 50 apply equally to all parties, including a respondent who has not filed a defence
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 14th December 2025 by the claimant is dismissed
- 2.Costs to the respondents in any event
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over trade disputes and employment relations; Article 41 of the Constitution cited in the main cause and Article 159 invoked in the application
Relief refused
#Leave to file and deem properly filed a supplementary list of documents dated 14th March 2025
Claimant's case had closed, no explanation was given for the failure to file the documents earlier, and allowing the application would prejudice the respondents and defeat fair and expeditious hearing
Costs
Costs to the respondents in any event
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is the view and holding of this court that unless where specifically stated so in the rules, the Civil Procedure Act and the Civil Procedure Rules do not apply to this court.
Clearly, this belated attempt by the claimant to sneak in the supplementary list of documents and copies thereof is an attempt to steal a match against the respondents.
The notice of motion dated 14th December 2025 by the claimant is hereby dismissed.
Costs to the respondents in any event.
Issues in the judgment
#The disposition describes the dismissed motion as 'dated 14th December 2025' whereas throughout the judgment it is dated 14th March 2025; the date in the final order appears to be an error.
The record states the application was dated 14th March 2025 but grounds of opposition are dated 19th March 2025 and were filed 'in response', which is consistent; however the court also refers to '14th March, 2015' in the grounds of opposition passage, an apparent typographical error in the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya County Government Workers Union v County Government of Vihiga & 4 others (Cause E040 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2606 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (memorandum of claim dated 20th December 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2606/eng@2025-09-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.