Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELRC 3019 (KLR)

Musyoki v Kenya Airways Limited (Cause E644 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 3019 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 October 2025
BMB. O. M. Manani
1,080 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court refused to remove a law firm from a case because the accusations against it were not backed by sworn evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first-instance ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court delivered by B. O. M. Manani, Judge, on 30th October 2025. By an application dated 9th February 2025, the Claimant sought to disqualify the Firm of Gikera & Vadgama Advocates from acting for the Respondent, alleging malpractice, deliberate delay, collusion with the Respondent to 'sneak' one Diana Kaeni into the Respondent's employment to manipulate records, secret meetings with the mediator and dictation of the mediation process. He also sought orders compelling the Respondent to produce his personal file, a DCI investigation report on one Maingi Musyoka, and that officer's employment records. The Respondent opposed through a replying affidavit dated 19th March 2025, contending it has a constitutional right to counsel of choice, that no conflict of interest or professional misconduct was evidenced, that mere discomfort with opposing counsel is insufficient, and that the application was meant to frustrate expeditious disposal. The court applied Kiura v Njuki, Singh v Mutua and David M Mereka, holding that disqualification of counsel is an extraordinary and drastic remedy reserved for the most extraordinary circumstances; that allegations of misconduct must be backed by sworn evidence; and that the Claimant's accusations, made without any supporting affidavit, remained unsubstantiated. The court found the application unmerited, disallowed it in its entirety, and awarded costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether disqualification of an advocate from acting in a cause was warranted

Holding

The application failed; no conflict of interest, professional misconduct or extraordinary circumstances were demonstrated.

Reasoning

The court restated that a party has a constitutional right to counsel of choice, that disqualification is drastic and reserved for extraordinary circumstances, and that allegations of malpractice must be proved by sworn evidence. The Claimant's accusations were made without an affidavit and remained unsubstantiated. No prejudice or conflict of interest was shown.

p. 3
02

Evidentiary weight of unsworn accusations against opposing counsel

Holding

Unsworn accusations carry no weight and remain unsubstantiated.

Reasoning

The Claimant accused the Respondent's lawyers of delaying tactics, collusion, secret meetings with the mediator and dictating the mediation process, all in the body of the application without affidavit backing. The court held that such assertions must be supported by a sworn statement or affidavit; absent that, the claims remain unsubstantiated.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An advocate may be disqualified from acting only where it is shown he is a potential witness or has a conflict of interest with the parties
  • Allegations of counsel misconduct must be supported by sworn evidence
  • Removal of an advocate from representing a party is an extraordinary and drastic remedy

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 9th February 2025 is disallowed
  2. 2.Costs of the application are granted to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) RulesRule 28(3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Kiura t/a Wasonga Kimakia & Associates Advocates v Njuki & another
    [2025] KEHC 1686 (KLR)
  • Singh v Mutua & 2 others
    [2024] KEHC 4868 (KLR)
  • David M Mereka t/a Mereka & Co Advocates v County Government of Nairobi
    [2021] KEHC 13448 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; court exercising first-instance employment and labour relations jurisdiction (ELRC)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Musyoki v Kenya Airways Limited (Cause E644 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 3019 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3019/eng@2025-10-30

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