Okeyo v KCB Bank Kenya Ltd (Cause E017 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2371 (KLR) (6 July 2026) (Ruling)

Okeyo v KCB Bank Kenya Ltd (Cause E017 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2371 (KLR) (6 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 2371 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu Cause E017 of 2026 Nzioki wa Makau, J July 6, 2026 Between Fredrick Okoth Okeyo Claimant and Kcb Bank Kenya Limited Respondent Ruling 1.The Learned Counsel for the Claimant Mr. Mbeka raises an objection to list and bundle of documents headed supplementary list of documents filed by the Respondent on Friday 3rd July 2026. Counsel argues that the documents ought to be expunged as they were filed and served without leave of the Court. He submits that the Respondent had previously been granted leave to file additional documents and that these were not filed at the time. 2.The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Ragot asserts that at the last court appearance, the Respondent was granted leave to file documents and that this was done on 4th June 2026. He argues that when the Respondent caused the filing of these documents on 4th June 2026, it did not file the documents filed on Friday 3rd July 2026. He says that as they were preparing for the hearing of the case today, the Respondent was able to avail the copy of the letter of reply to appeal. He apologises to the Court and his Learned Friend. He submits that he has not heard the Learned Counsel for the Claimant to assert there will be prejudice and that it was only a complaint about late filing. He submitted that the documents now on record should be permitted to stay on record as the Claimant has equally filed supplementary documents without the leave of the court and cannot be seen to complain about the Respondent’s late filing. He says that if Mr. Mbeka had spoken to him about this he would have pointed out that they both have black spots in their eyes and therefore need not have a tussle over the documents. He specifically pointed out the document where the Claimant had been retained as an acting manager. He thus urges the decline of the order sought. 3.In his brief reply, Mr. Mbeka for the Claimant submits that he is opposed to the documents being produced as they will occasion injustice upon the Claimant. He asserts he would not have raised the objection had there been no prejudice that would be meted out to his client. Disposition 4.The objection taken is to the documentary evidence the Respondent filed late on Friday. It is argued the document filed so late in the day will prejudice the Claimant. It is argued because the same was filed without leave of the Court it ought to be expunged. The Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024 avails opportunity for parties to file documents and present physical copies to Court within 7 days of filing. In the instant case, the Respondent has filed a document in the court portal which is a letter dated 10th September 2025 and an email of 12th September 2025 forwarding the letter to an email address indicated as Fredok@xxxxxxxx.com. (email address redacted). 5.In the Claimant’s memorandum of claim, it is asserted the Respondent meted out an unfair termination and that in the unlawfulness of it, the Respondent is said not to have responded to the Claimant’s request for update on the appeal. The import of the objection is thus apparent. 6.When a party submits documents after stipulated deadlines without securing prior judicial permission, a court typically would have to consider the reason for the late filing sans leave, whether there is a possibility of prejudice to the other party. A court also has to balance the interests of justice before making a determination as to whether the document ought to be expunged or whether the court grants retroactive leave. 7.The delay in filing is stated to be the inability of the Respondent to initially avail the document. The explanation is one that bothers the Court somewhat. Is the Respondent telling the Court that when preparing to defend itself it did not consider all the documents it could harness for its defence? Was it plausible there was a bank official who was callous and only dealt with the preliminary issue before the Court being the interlocutory motion before my brother the Hon. Justice Dr. Gakeri? If indeed the mind of the Respondent had been properly engaged, it would have noted the Claimant’s claim included a component which the document now being sought to be produced would have answered. 8.The Claimant has previously filed documents before this Court without the leave of the Court. The Court discerns that if it disallows the document by the Respondent, it would perhaps disadvantage the Respondent in a way that the Claimant has not been disadvantaged for filing documents without leave of the Court. The interests of justice require that the scales be even. No party is more equal than the other and considering the equality of arms in the law, it would be unjust to disallow the Respondent from adducing the documents, albeit filed late and without leave. As a result of the foregoing, I will overrule the Claimant’s objection but order the Respondent to file the document afresh. The Claimant is granted corresponding leave to file a document in reply should need arise. The reply by the Claimant is to be filed withing 7 days of service by the Respondent. Consequently, the hearing that was scheduled for today is deferred to a date later this month to be agreed upon, after delivery of this Ruling. 9.Granted it is the Respondent who has led to the unfortunate turn of events by filing the document without first seeking the leave of the court, it is considered that a sum of Kshs. 10,000/- to be paid to the Claimant for the aborted hearing will suffice. There will be a sum of Kshs. 2,500/- paid to Court for the adjournment as court adjournment fees. Hearing date to be rescheduled with concurrence of parties on the most convenient date for hearing.It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 6TH DAY OF JULY 2026NZIOKI WA MAKAU, MCIArb.JUDGE