[2024] KEELRC 2415 (KLR)
The court held that the circumstances under which the Claimant's Job/Company ID card was issued, and whether it is a forgery, are triable issues that must be determined at the full hearing of the dispute. The mere filing of a police report and unsubstantiated allegations of forgery by the Respondents do not justify...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELRC 2415 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseah Korir; Respondent: Lawina Company Limited; Respondent: Peter Lagat; Respondent: Jane Chepchumba Lagat
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 536 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Admissibility of Documentary Evidence Prior to Trial
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Documentary Evidence, Forgery Allegations, Employee Identification, Burden of Proof
- 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
Joseah Korir
Applicant
Lawina Company Limited
Respondent
Peter Lagat
Respondent
Jane Chepchumba Lagat
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Admissibility of Documentary Evidence Prior to Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Claimant's Job/Company ID card should be struck out from the court record as inadmissible evidence.
- 2 Whether allegations of forgery and a police report justify expungement of the document prior to trial.
- 3 Whether the validity and weight of the document should be determined at trial.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the circumstances under which the Claimant's Job/Company ID card was issued, and whether it is a forgery, are triable issues that must be determined at the full hearing of the dispute. The mere filing of a police report and unsubstantiated allegations of forgery by the Respondents do not justify the expungement of the document from the record at the interlocutory stage. The court emphasized that the admissibility and probative value of the document should be assessed after hearing both parties' evidence, including oral testimony and cross-examination. Premature exclusion of the document would be imprudent and contrary to the interests of justice, as it would deny the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 12th April 2023 filed by the Respondents is declined.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
Korir v Lawina Company Limited & 2 others (Cause 536 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 2415 (KLR) (4 October 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELRC 2415 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause 536 of 2018
J Rika, J
October 4, 2024
Between
Joseah Korir
Claimant
and
Lawina Company Limited
1st Respondent
Peter Lagat
2nd Respondent
Jane Chepchumba Lagat
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1. LAWINA COMPANY LIMITED
2. PETER LAGAT
3. JANE CHEPCHUMBA LAGAT …………………………………………………. RESPONDENT
RULING 1. In their application dated 12th April 2023, the Respondents pray for two main orders: -I. The document titled ‘’ Claimant’s Job/Company ID’’ appearing at page 18 of the Claimant’s documents, be struck out from the Court’s record.II. The document titled ‘’Claimant’s Job/ Company ID’’ appearing at page 18 of the Claimant’s documents, be declared as inadmissible in these proceedings.
2. The grounds in support of the application are set out in the affidavit sworn by the 2nd Respondent, a Director or the 1st Respondent, Peter Lagat.
3. He states that the Respondents were unaware about the document, until they saw it in the bundle filed by the Claimant.
4. They did not issue the document to the Claimant.
5. They filed a complaint at the Kilimani Police Station, upon receiving the document. Their complaint, was that the document was forged. The document is foreign to the Respondents. The Claimant was a casual Employee, and the Respondents state, they have never issued a Job ID card to any Employee.
6. The application is opposed through grounds dated 18th April 2023, and a replying affidavit sworn by the Claimant on the same date.
7. His position is that the application is unmerited. The validity of the document sought to be expunged, is a matter of evidence. It can be dealt with through the trial. The application is diversionary, and report concerning the document made to the Police, is meant to intimidate the Claimant.
8. He states that the Job ID card was issued to him by the Respondents, during the 2007/2008 post-election violence, for ease of movement to and from work. He denies that he was a casual Employee, having worked for 11 years for the Respondents. He states that he would be calling as his witness, his then Advocate Julie Soweto, who was a tenant at Lenana Court, the premises the Claimant was assigned to guard by the Respondents.
9. The application was last mentioned before the Court on 20th September 2024, when the Parties confirmed filing and exchange of their submissions.
The Court Finds: - 10. The circumstances under which the Job ID card exhibited by the Claimant issued, is a triable issue.
11. Whether it is a forgery; whether a report of forgery was made to the Police; whether the Claimant was prosecuted; and forgery established, are all matters to be taken up by the Parties upon the hearing of the dispute.
12. A report to the Police and bare allegations by the Respondents that the document is forged, does not justify expungement of the document from the record.
13. The Court shall upon hearing the evidence from the Parties, determine if it should rely on the document; whether it should attach any weight to the document; or discard the document altogether.
14. There is no merit to the Respondents’ application. They should wait for the trial, and persuade the Court through evidence, how they wish the document to be treated by the Court. It is imprudent, and not in the interest of justice, to have the document rejected without giving the Parties the benefit of giving evidence before the Court, on the validity of the document. The document is intended to be used as evidence, alongside other oral evidence, including that of the Claimant and his proposed witness, Julie Soweto, an Officer of the Court and a former tenant of the Respondents. The Parties should be allowed to present their documentary and oral evidence unhindered.
It Is Ordered: -a.The application dated 12th April 2023 filed by the Respondents is declined.b.Costs in the cause.Dated, signed and released to the Parties electronically at Nairobi, under Practice Direction 6[2] of the Electronic Case Management Practice Directions, 2020, this 4th day of October 2024. James RikaJudge