REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU CAUSE NO. E090 OF 2025 WYCLIFFE OTIENO ODONDI…………………………….. ….CLAIMANT VERSUS NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA LIMITED………..………RESPONDENT RULING 1. Objection is taken to the line of questions being adduced by the Respondent’s witness who is on the stand. Miss Boyengo asserts the Respondent’s witness is going beyond what is in his statement and the bundle of documents the Respondent filed. Page 1 of 4
page 1 of 4
2. Miss Aduke for the Respondent in her reply asserts the issue of deferred hearing is on the disciplinary hearing minutes which show hearing had been scheduled for 7 th July but actually took place on 9th July 2025. It is her position that the witness is adducing evidence in examination-in-chief and therefore she is permitted to draw inferences and ask question to the witness to expand and elucidate his testimony before Court. 3. In the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024, Rule 7 (4) thereof provides that the witness statements to be availed shall contain sufficient details that (a) The witness adopts the statement as the sufficient evidence in chief at the hearing and (b) Thereafter only minimal highlighting and production of documents may be required before the witness can be cross-examined. 4. Rule 7(5) provides that the witness statement filed shall make sequential reference to the documents filed by their page numbers. It therefore follows per the Rules of this Court, there is no room to expand the scope of testimony or Page 2 of 4
page 2 of 4
embellish a statement. Any attempt to go beyond the provisions of Rule 7 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024 is to lead us down a path that the framers of the 2010 Constitution and legislation that has followed, never intended in order to have orderly trials and for a party to be sufficiently aware of the case they are to meet, we cannot have parties having the liberty to amend their testimonies. This is not within the law and as such, I must uphold the objection by Counsel for the Claimant. If the Respondent had intended to expand the scope of the testimony to be adduced by its witness, there was ample time from 7th October 2025 when the suit was filed and subsequently served upon the Respondent. Evidence is not a moving target and therefore the requirements to file comprehensive statements in terms of the Rules cannot be overemphasized. Objection allowed. Unless Counsel has any other relevant question, the witness having adopted his statement is subject to cross-examination in terms of Rule 7(4) and (5) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024. It is so ordered. Page 3 of 4
page 3 of 4
Dated and delivered at Kisumu this 21st day of September 2026 Nzioki wa Makau, MCIArb. JUDGE Page 4 of 4
page 4 of 4