[2023] KEELRC 1987 (KLR)
The court held that re-examination must be confined to clarifying issues raised during cross-examination and cannot be used to introduce new matters. Since the distinction between Visa Cemea Holdings Ltd and Visa Middle East FZ LLC was not raised during cross-examination, allowing questions on this issue in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELRC 1987 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Juanita Caroline Omanga; Respondent: Visa Cemea Holdings Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition E157 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Objection During Re Examination
- Outcome
- Objection upheld.
- Judges
- Nzioki wa Makau
- Legal Topics
- Re Examination Scope, Cross Examination Limits, Employer Identity Dispute
- 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
Juanita Caroline Omanga
Applicant
Visa Cemea Holdings Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Objection During Re Examination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the scope of re-examination permits questions introducing new areas not covered in cross-examination.
- 2 Whether the Petitioner can be questioned on distinctions between Visa Cemea Holdings Ltd and Visa Middle East FZ LLC during re-examination.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that re-examination must be confined to clarifying issues raised during cross-examination and cannot be used to introduce new matters. Since the distinction between Visa Cemea Holdings Ltd and Visa Middle East FZ LLC was not raised during cross-examination, allowing questions on this issue in re-examination would unfairly open new lines of inquiry without giving the Respondent an opportunity to respond. The court found that the Petitioner's answer sufficiently clarified the matter and no further questions should be allowed on this topic.
Court Disposition
Objection upheld.
Orders
- No further questions to be led in re-examination regarding the distinction between Visa Cemea Holdings Ltd and Visa Middle East FZ LLC.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Omanga v Visa Cemea Holdings Limited (Petition E157 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 1987 (KLR) (3 July 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELRC 1987 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Petition E157 of 2022
Nzioki wa Makau, J
July 3, 2023
Between
Juanita Caroline Omanga
Claimant
and
Visa Cemea Holdings Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. There is objection as to the line of questions being undertaken by Mr. Ochieng for the Petitioner. The objection by Miss Omondi is that the Respondent did not ask questions as to the distinction between the entities Visa CemeaHoldings Ltd and Visa Middle East FZ LLC. As such, Miss Omondi asserts she will not be able to cross examine the Petitioner on the questions she will answer relating the entities. She submits she only asked if the employer of the Petitioner was Visa Middle East.
2. Mr. Ochieng is opposed to the objection and submits that the first question asked was about the employment letter and the second question was on whether the company was similar. The Petitioner, it was asserted, was merely trying to clarify and the reason for his question to her was to get clarity if the two are different entities.
3. In reprise, Miss Omondi asserts that she was not asking for a distinction between the company and only asked the Petitioner to state who her employer was. She submits she did not ask for a distinction and that issue would be for submission being a legal issue. She maintains the questions being asked will open a further line of questions which she would not have the benefit of countering. She thus urged the objection be upheld.
4. In re-examination, the latitude is limited to seeking clarification and in as far as the Petitioner is concerned, it could be opening a pandora’s box to allow extensive reopening of testimony as reaching new areas of examination is not permitted in re-examination. The question asked of the Petitioner was answered thus “Visa is one company with one Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and one Board and its shares are traded on the New York stock exchange. The company is one entity and has offices in other countries”. This is my considered view clarified sufficiently and no further questions should be led in this regard as the Respondent will not have a chance to have a go at questioning the Petitioner. As such objection is, upheld to the extent the Petitioner should seek answers in respect to other aspects of testimony unrelated to the questions that have been asked and answered.It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY 2023NZIOKI WA MAKAUJUDGE