[2019] KEELRC 1630 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 1630 (KLR)

The court found that the 'Brief for CDF' constituted a confidential legal opinion protected under Section 137 of the Evidence Act, and that the Claimant failed to satisfactorily explain how he obtained the documents from his personal file. The court determined that the documents were illegally acquired and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 1630 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: David M’iti Makwacii; Respondent: Kenya Defence Forces
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1149 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application to Expunge Documents
Outcome
Application allowed; impugned documents expunged from the record.
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Privileged Documents, Confidential Information, Procedure for Expunging Documents
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Admissibility of Evidence Privileged Documents Confidential Information Procedure for Expunging Documents

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David M’iti Makwacii

Claimant

Kenya Defence Forces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment and Labour Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application to Expunge Documents

  1. 1 Whether the documents titled 'Brief for CDF' and the letter to the Commission on Administrative Justice are privileged and inadmissible as evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the documents were obtained illegally and should be expunged from the court record.
  3. 3 Whether the documents fall under the protection of Section 137 of the Evidence Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 'Brief for CDF' constituted a confidential legal opinion protected under Section 137 of the Evidence Act, and that the Claimant failed to satisfactorily explain how he obtained the documents from his personal file. The court determined that the documents were illegally acquired and privileged, and therefore inadmissible. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to expunge both the 'Brief for CDF' and the letter to the Commission on Administrative Justice from the court record, upholding the principle that privileged communications between advocate and client are protected from disclosure and cannot be admitted as evidence if improperly obtained.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; impugned documents expunged from the record.

Orders

  • The 'Brief for CDF' dated 10th April 2017 and the letter to the acting chairperson of the Commission on Administrative Justice dated 16th May 2017 are expunged from the Claimant's list of documents and the court record.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.