[2025] KEELRC 846 (KLR)

[2025] KEELRC 846 (KLR)

The court found that the Claimant had complied with the requirements of Section 106B(4) of the Evidence Act by filing a certificate identifying the computer and the responsible persons involved in producing the audio recordings. There was no concrete evidence presented by the Respondent to substantiate the objection...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELRC 846 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jacqueline Amutavi; Respondent: DHL Supply Chain Kenya Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Employment and Labour Relations Cause 271 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Cause / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Objection to admissibility of audio recordings dismissed; exhibits 57 and 58 admitted as evidence.
Judges
AN Mwaure
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Electronic Evidence, Unfair Termination, Job Classification
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Admissibility of Evidence Electronic Evidence Unfair Termination Job Classification

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacqueline Amutavi

Applicant

DHL Supply Chain Kenya Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment and Labour Cause / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

  1. 1 Whether audio recordings (exhibits 57 and 58) are admissible as evidence in light of objections regarding consent and authenticity.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of Section 106B of the Evidence Act have been satisfied for the admission of electronic evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant had complied with the requirements of Section 106B(4) of the Evidence Act by filing a certificate identifying the computer and the responsible persons involved in producing the audio recordings. There was no concrete evidence presented by the Respondent to substantiate the objection regarding the manner in which the recordings were obtained or their authenticity. The court further noted that both parties had consented to the filing of the amended claim and supplementary documents, which included the impugned exhibits. The court held that the Respondent would have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on the contents and authenticity of the...

Court Disposition

Objection to admissibility of audio recordings dismissed; exhibits 57 and 58 admitted as evidence.

Orders

  • Claimant's exhibits 57 and 58 are admissible as evidence.
  • The file is returned to Nairobi for mention on 21st May 2025 before Justice H. Wasilwa for further directions.