[2018] KEELRC 1641 (KLR)
The court held that its earlier suo moto directive to refer a disputed document to the Criminal Investigations Department for authentication was inconsistent with the adversarial nature of Kenyan legal proceedings. The court emphasized that its role is to remain neutral and not to take investigative steps on its own...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 1641 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Eliud Kinyua Tiribu; Respondent: Mastermind Tobacco Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 707 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Interlocutory Ruling on Court's Suo Moto Directive
- Outcome
- Court's suo moto directive set aside; proceedings to continue.
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Adversarial Process, Judicial Neutrality, Document Authenticity, Court Suo Motu Powers
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Eliud Kinyua Tiribu
Claimant
Mastermind Tobacco Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Interlocutory Ruling on Court's Suo Moto Directive
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court's suo moto directive to refer a document to the Criminal Investigations Department for authenticity was proper in an adversarial system.
- 2 Whether the court should set aside its own directive to maintain judicial neutrality.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that its earlier suo moto directive to refer a disputed document to the Criminal Investigations Department for authentication was inconsistent with the adversarial nature of Kenyan legal proceedings. The court emphasized that its role is to remain neutral and not to take investigative steps on its own initiative. Accordingly, the directive was set aside to ensure that the proceedings continue in accordance with the principles of adversarial adjudication, where parties bear the responsibility for presenting and challenging evidence. The matter was ordered to proceed to hearing on a date to be agreed by the parties.
Court Disposition
Court's suo moto directive set aside; proceedings to continue.
Orders
- The court's directive referring the document to the Criminal Investigations Department is set aside.
- The proceedings will proceed on a date to be agreed by the parties.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 707 OF 2013
ELIUD KINYUA TIRIBU........................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
MASTERMIND TOBACCO LTD......................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Claimant herein was led in examination in chief and partly cross examined on 13 October 2015. The hearing was adjourned to 10 November 2015 when the Respondent indicated it wanted to attempt an out of court settlement.
2. The Court gave the parties time to attempt the settlement but nothing came out of it and when hearing resumed on 14 November 2017, the Court suo moto directed that a document which was the subject of cross examination be taken to the Criminal Investigations Department to establish its authenticity (signature).
3. The directive by the Court stalled the proceedings up to now.
4. In the view of the Court that suo moto directive ought to be set aside as the adversarial nature of our system dictates a neutral adjudicative role for the Court.
5. The proceedings will therefore proceed on a date to be agreed on hereinafter.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nairobi on this 29th day of June 2018.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Claimant Namada & Co. Advocates
For Respondent Mbugwa, Atudo & Macharia Advocates
Court Assistant Stella