Mveyange v Partnership for African Social & Governance Research Limited (PASGR) (Cause E236 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2972 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court allowed an employee to fix his lawyer's mistake by re-opening his case for omitted documents, but refused everything else and awarded the other side costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the omission of exhibits 10, 11, 12 and 15 from the bundle dated 21st March 2023 was a mistake of counsel amounting to sufficient reason to re-open the case
It was. The lawyer listed 34 exhibits but omitted to attach some; the Claimant honestly believed all were on record and did not contribute to the error, so he should not be driven from the seat of justice
The court found on the record that the Claimant's advocates listed 34 documents but attached only some. At the time he testified on 14th November 2024 the Claimant believed the bundle contained all 34 documents. The error was wholly the lawyer's, the Claimant acted in good faith and was not negligent, so under rule 66 this amounted to sufficient reason to re-open the case solely for production of the omitted exhibits.
Whether the Claimant should also be permitted to introduce the supplementary list and bundle dated 14th June 2023
No. The request was rejected as the Claimant never signified any intention to rely on that bundle during his testimony, indicating negligence or recklessness by both Claimant and counsel
The court distinguished the two bundles. Whereas the 21st March 2023 bundle was referenced and believed complete when the Claimant testified, the 14th June 2023 bundle was never mentioned in his oral testimony. The court inferred either an intention not to produce it or recklessness, and held that discretion cannot favour an indolent or negligent litigant, relying on Rafiki Microfinance Bank Ltd v John & another.
The legal meaning of 'sufficient reason' under rule 66 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024
'Sufficient reason' requires compelling and cogent grounds; the applicant must have acted diligently, with bona fides, and without negligence
The court adopted the liberal construction from Okiya Omtata Okoiti (Court of Appeal) quoting the Tanzanian Court of Appeal and the Indian Supreme Court in Parimal v Veena: 'sufficient cause' means the party did not act negligently, inactively, or without bona fides, and the discretion must be exercised judiciously on the facts of each case.
Legal principles established
#- A court may not re-open a case for hearing unless there are sufficient (compelling and cogent) reasons, and a party seeking re-opening must show diligence and bona fides and an absence of negligence
- A party is free to list documents in a list of documents but is not obligated to tender all of them in evidence; production as exhibits is a matter of the party's discretion subject to rules of admissibility
- A litigant should not be punished for the mistake of his counsel, and a mistake by counsel may constitute sufficient reason to re-open proceedings
- A court will not exercise its discretion in favour of a party who has been indolent or negligent
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 26th February 2025 is allowed to the extent of re-opening the case to enable the Claimant to present the exhibits listed in the list of documents dated 21st March 2023 but omitted from the bundle
- 2.Apart from placing the missing documents on the court record, the Claimant shall not be entitled to present further evidence in the cause
- 3.The Respondent is entitled to cross-examine the Claimant on the said documents and to present additional defence evidence to counter the documents if need be
- 4.The Claimant's request to introduce the further list and bundle of documents dated 14th June 2023 is rejected
- 5.The Respondent shall have costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024, rule 66 (first-instance application in a pending suit)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mveyange v Partnership for African Social & Governance Research Limited (PASGR) (Cause E236 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2972 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2972/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.