[2021] KEELRC 382 (KLR)
The court found that the Claimant's counsel was indeed asking leading questions during examination-in-chief, despite prior guidance from the court to refrain from such conduct. The objection by the Respondent's counsel was therefore merited. The court emphasized the importance of proper courtroom procedure and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELRC 382 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Khamis Yusuf Manzu; Respondent: TransCentury Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 445 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Objection During Hearing
- Outcome
- objection upheld
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Leading Questions, Examination in Chief, Courtroom Procedure
- 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
Khamis Yusuf Manzu
Applicant
TransCentury Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Objection During Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Claimant's counsel was improperly leading the witness during examination-in-chief.
- 2 Whether the objection to the form of questioning was merited.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Claimant's counsel was indeed asking leading questions during examination-in-chief, despite prior guidance from the court to refrain from such conduct. The objection by the Respondent's counsel was therefore merited. The court emphasized the importance of proper courtroom procedure and the prohibition against leading questions except where allowed by law. As a result, the objection was upheld and the Claimant's counsel was directed to desist from giving answers in the form of purported questions.
Court Disposition
objection upheld
Orders
- Objection to the leading question is upheld.
- Claimant's counsel is directed to desist from leading the witness.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 445 OF 2019
KHAMIS YUSUF MANZU................................................................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
TRANSCENTURY LIMITED.......................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Objection is raised to a question raised by Mr. Ndiema for the Claimant. Objection by Mr. Waiyaki is that the Claimant’s Counsel is leading the witness in the manner of questioning put. It is objected that Counsel is putting words in the Claimant’s mouth about a phrase on “formal contract”. The Objection thus is to the question put since it seems to be nowhere it the letter referred to by the reply to demand letter.
2 Mr. Ndiema for the Claimant maintains that the question is proper and that the witness is being asked to explain. He concedes that there is no formal contract.
3. In a brief reprise Mr. Waiyaki reiterates that his objection is to the leading question being asked.
4. The Counsel for the Claimant surprisingly sought to reply to this despite his arrival that he is a lawyer. Objection taken by Counsel for the Respondent is apt. Counsel for the Claimant has been asking leading questions which the Court had suo moto asked him to refrain from doing. Despite this guidance from Court, he has prompted Counsel for the Respondent to rightly, in my view, object. As the Objection is merited due to the leading questions being asked the Claimant’s Counsel is urged to desist from giving answers in the form of purported questions. Objection upheld.
It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
NZIOKI WA MAKAU
JUDGE