Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (interlocutory application dated 25 March 2025 within a petition)· [2025] KEELRC 2793 (KLR)

Western Human Rights Forum v Sling Shot Kenya Limited & 2 others; Kenya Revenue Authority & another (Interested Parties) (Petition E010 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2793 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
16 October 2025
1,231 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a bid to force employers to hand over staff records, ruling that access to information demands proper legal procedure first.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner, John Abura Oucho, filed an application dated 25 March 2025 under Rules 13, 19 and 20 of the Constitution of Kenya Rules, various constitutional articles and Order 40 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking orders compelling the respondents to furnish and/or deposit the information and documents listed in paragraph 24 of his petition - including employment records, contracts, attendance registers, payrolls, overtime and off-duty records, salary data, NSSF and NHIF statements, PAYE statements and dismissal letters. He claimed to act for employees of the 1st and 2nd respondents and the public interest, alleging arbitrary dismissals, non-implementation of salary increases for five years, non-remittance of statutory dues, harassment and lack of formal service letters. The 1st and 2nd respondents, through director Mohamed Atif Fazil, opposed the application, contending the petitioner was a stranger without standing, was on a fishing expedition, had not invoked the Access to Information Act, and that the documents concerned third parties' privacy under the Data Protection Act. The court identified the sole issue as whether the interim production orders should issue. It flagged sections 10(6) and (7) of the Employment Act on the employer's duty to keep written particulars and the evidential burden on non-production, but held that the petitioner's standing was undisclosed and that Article 35 access to information is not absolute and is procedure-governed by the Access to Information Act, which the petitioner had not invoked, rendering the application premature. The application was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court should direct the respondents to furnish or deposit the documents listed under paragraph 24 of the petition.

Holding

The application was dismissed because the petitioner's standing to access third-party records was not disclosed and the petitioner did not follow the Access to Information Act procedure.

Reasoning

The court noted that the interim application replicated the main petition and required interrogation of the petition's genesis. The petitioner asserted he acted for the respondents' employees but did not disclose his standing to claim third-party records. Article 35 access to information is regulated by the Access to Information Act, whose procedures the petitioner did not invoke, making the application premature. The documents also engage third parties' privacy rights under the Data Protection Act. Without determining the merits, the orders sought could not issue.

p. 4
02

The employer's statutory duty to keep written particulars and the evidential consequence of non-production.

Holding

Employers must keep written particulars for five years after termination and bear the burden of proving or disproving an alleged term of employment if they fail to produce the written contract.

Reasoning

Relying on section 10(6) and (7) of the Employment Act, the court observed that an employer engaging an employee for three months or more must reduce the contract to writing, accurately capture remuneration, and retain the particulars for five years after termination. These provisions benefit the employee and the court, as held in Otunga v Hydro Build Limited. The court flagged these provisions for the parties' attention before any interim orders could issue.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer who engages an employee for three months or more must reduce the contract to writing and retain written particulars for five years after termination; failure to produce the written contract shifts the burden of proving or disproving an alleged term of employment to the employer.
  • The right of access to information under Article 35 of the Constitution is not absolute and is subject to the modalities and procedural requirements of the Access to Information Act.
  • A party invoking Article 22 of the Constitution cannot obtain third-party information without full disclosure of its standing and must follow the Access to Information Act procedure.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 25 March 2025 is dismissed.
  2. 2.Each party to bear its costs.
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 22, 23 and 165(3) of the Constitution (petition invoking Rule 13, 19, 20 of the Constitution of Kenya Rules and Order 40 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Western Human Rights Forum v Sling Shot Kenya Limited & 2 others; Kenya Revenue Authority & another (Interested Parties) (Petition E010 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2793 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (interlocutory application dated 25 March 2025 within a petition). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2793/eng@2025-10-16

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