https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2145

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI** **PETITION NO. E011 OF 2026** *(Before Hon. Justice Dr. Jacob Gakeri)* **PETER ZACHARIA OMUODO…………………………..…. PETITIONER** **-VERSUS-** **AGRICULTURAL FINANCE CORPORATION…………. RESPONDENT** **JUDGEMENT** The Petitioner commenced this suit vide a Petition dated 12th January 2026 alleging that the respondent terminated his employment without any justification and without according him a right to be heard. The petitioner relied on Articles 10, 42, 47 50(i) and 236 of the Constitution of Kenya as the legal and constitutional foundation. The petitioner contended that by letter dated 24th October 2023, the Respondent accused him of having forged the Kenya certificate of Primary Education (KCPE) from Kakamega Primary School without a forensic report investigation or KNEC finding and KNEC log-ins, confirmed that the certificate was genuine, cited his Old KCPE Certificate as Serial No. 256618 which was correct. The petitioner alleged that he did not receive the invitation to attend a hearing dated 21st February 2024 and opted to take early retirement vide letter dated 29th February 2024. That arising from the allegations, he was interrogated by the Directorate of Criminal Investigation, and harassed. That the respondent’s actions destroyed his dignity reputation, livelihood and career. The petitioner prayed for; 1. Declaration that the accusation of having forged his KCPE certificate was unlawful, irrational and malicious. 2. Declaration that the Respondent violated Articles 10, 28,41, 47, 50(1) and 236 of the Constitution of Kenya. 3. Declaration that termination of employment vide letter dated 12th March 2024 was unlawful. 4. Declaration that the respondent abused public power and acted in bad faith. 5. Maximum compensation for unfair termination of employment Kshs.899,388.00. 6. Two (2) month’s salary in *lieu* of notice 7. Salary allowance and benefits from date of termination till date of judgment. 8. Salary, allowances and benefits from date of termination of employment till retirement date in 2029, Kshs.5,688,629.00. 9. Pension, gratuity and retirement benefits that would have accrued but for the termination of employment. 10. General damages for violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights. Kshs.2000,000.00 11. Aggravated damages for malicious, oppressive and bad faith, Kshs.2,000,000.00. 12. Exemplary damages for abuse of public power, Kshs.2,000,000.00 13. Expunction of all false and adverse records from the petitioner’s employment file. 14. Permanent injunction restraining the respondent from publishing, circulating or maintaining that the petitioner’s forged academic certificates. 15. Costs of the suit 16. Interest on all monetary awards. 17. Any other order or relief the court deemed just and fit to grant. **Respondent’s case** By a Reply dated 21st April 2026 the Respondent averred that it received a directive from the Public Service Commission, vide letter dated 19th October 2023 requiring it to audit and verify all certificates submitted by employees and report to the Commission. That at the respondent’s instigation the KNEC verified the certificates and provided a report dated 8th September 2023 indicating that the petitioner’s KCPE Certificate had an alteration of the name and had been obtained from forgery. The respondent averred that vide letter dated 24th October 2023, he sought an explanation from the petitioner who submitted a second Certificate Serial Number 256618 by the name Peter Z. Omwondo together with a Birth certificate by the name Peter Zachary Omwodo, and a KNEC receipt by the name Peter Zachary Omwodo and requested their re-submission for authentication and by letter dated 26th January 2024 the respondent informed the petitioner that KNEC had re-examined the documents and noted that they were still a forgery and the names were altered and he contended vide letter dated 29th January 2024 that the name in his National identification card was Peter Z Omuodo whereas the KNEC comis Portal and KCPE certificate had the name Peter Z Omwodo and swore an affidavit that it was the same person. Subsequently, the petitioner was invited for a disciplinary hearing vide letter dated 21st February 2024, collected by him in person at the respondent’s Head office. The respondent averred that the petitioner did not attend the hearing slated for 7th March 2024 and submitted a Notice of early retirement dated 29th February 2024 and ceased to render services and the disciplinary committee resolved to terminate his employment and forwarded his name to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations. The respondent further averred that 7 months after termination of employment the petitioner submitted a rectified Certificate from the petitioner, authentication from KNEC and clearance from the DCI the respondent processed the petitioner’s terminal dues less the amount he owed the respondent in accord with his instructions. The respondent averred that the termination of the petitioner’s employment was procedurally fair and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. **Petitioner’s submissions** The Petitioners counsel submitted on whether forgery had been proved to the required standard, whether the respondent violated the Petitioners Constitutional rights and the Petitioners entitlement to the reliefs sought. On the first issue, counsel relied on the decisions in **Kenya Revenue Authority v Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi & 2 others, Ashton Akaranga & 5 others v Parliamentary Service Commission & 3 others (2026) KEELRC 689 (KLR) and Kenfreight EA Ltd v Benson K. Nguti (2016) eKLR** to urge that the employer bore the burden to rove that the Petitioner was culpable. Also cited was the decision in **Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava & another (2015) eKLR,** to submit that the respondent did not conduct investigations. On whether the Petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated, counsel submitted that the respondent violated article 41 of the Constitution by subjecting the Petitioner to a Procedurally defective process. Reliance was placed on the decision in **Postal Corporation of Kenya v Tanui (2019) eKLR** to urge the Respondent violated Article 47 of the Constitution and contend that the process was predetermined. On reliefs Counsel cited the decisions in **Pius Isindu Machafu v Lavington Security Guards Ltd (2017) eklr, Kenya Revenue Authority v Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi & 2 others (Supra) and Gitobu Imanyara & 2 others v Attorney General (2016) eKLR** to submit that the Petitioner was entitled to appropriate remedies for the unlawful termination of employment including exemplary damages. **Respondent’s Submissions** Counsel submitted on doctrine of exhantion whether the respondent had discharged the burden of proof, legal status of employee after resignation and whether the termination process was fair. According to counsel, the Petitioners ought to have invoked the Respondents human resource instruments before invoking the court’s jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on **Abidha Nicholas v Attorney General & 7 others (2023) KESC 113 (KLR)** on prove of forgery, counsel submitted that the KNEC officially verified the certificates and its report dated 8th September 2023 was clear and the disparities in the names was acknowledged. On resignation counsel submitted that since the petitioner resigned, he lost his claim on unfair termination. Reliance was placed on **Coca Cola East & Central Africa Ltd v Ligaga (2015) eKLR** on constructive dismissal as well as **Mwaura v CIC Insurance Group Ltd (2026) KECA 250 (KLR) and Edward Machuka Nyamora v Kenya Animal Genetic Resource Centre (2018) eKLR** to urge that the Petitioner resigned and was not unfairly terminated from employment. As to whether the respondent took the Petitioner through a fair disciplinary process, counsel submitted that the process was fair and was not entitled to any relief. **Analysis and determination** It is in dispute that vide Circular Ref. PSC/ADM/13(42) dated 19th October 2022, the Chairperson of the Public Service Commission Ambassador A.M. Muchiri required all authorized officers and Chief Executive Officer of State Corporations. 1. Undertake an audit of academic and Professional certificates of all newly appointed officers in the last 10 years in Ministries, Departments, Agencies and State Corporations (MDAS) and submit a Report of the exercise by 1st January 2023. 2. Dismiss from the service in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Commission Act, the Public Officer Ethics Act and the Leadership and Integrity Act any Officer found in possession of forged certificates. 3. Continuously, validate academic and professional certificates prior to appointments and promotions and file the same through the Compliance and Quality Assurance Quarterly (M&E) and annual reports to the Commission. By a further Circular Ref: PSC/ADM/13(45) dated 19th October 2023, the Chairperson of the Public Service Commission provided an update on of the exercise and most importantly, provided guidelines on what authorized officers and C.E.Os of State Corporations would do where forged or fraudulently obtained academic and professional certificates were found. This included, appointments be declared null and void *ab initio* no allowances or benefits would be payable including pension and the cases be referred to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations for prosecution and recovery of monies owed. Pursuant to the earlier circular, the Respondent dispatched a total of 206 certificates to the Kenya National Examinations Council (KNEC) for authentication and vide letter dated 8th September 2013, the KNEC reported that 195 certificates were genuine, 3 were forged, one (1) was not clear and 7 had name mismatch. Of the 3 forged certificates one was under the name Peter Z. Omwodo the petitioner who sat the KCPE examination at Kakamega. Primary school in 1985 index number 63317/106. That the candidates name had been altered from Peter 2 Omwodo to Peter Z Omuodo and the candidate’s name, school name and index number were written by hand on the purported copy of the certificate. The KNEC’s conclusion was that the 3 certificates had been obtained from forged documents stated the letter dated 8th September 2023 signed by Imelda Barasa for the C.E.O KNEC. Consequently, the Respondent vide letter dated 24th October 2023 requested the Petitioner to explain why he presented a forged document within seven (7) days including evidence or information to clarify the discrepancies. The petitioner provided a copy of his Birth certificate dated 28th June 1977 under the name Peter Zachary Omuodo, a KNEC results confirmation, log-in dated 2nd January 2024 under the name Peter 2 Omwodo, copy of the KCPE Certificate under the name Peter 2 Omwodo, a KNEC receipt dated 7th March 1985 under the name Peter Zachary Omwodo and an Affidavit sworn on 5th March 2024 attesting that Peter Z. Omwondo and Peter Zachary Omuodo were one and the same person. However, no explanation was provided. A subsequent resubmission of the certificate to KNEC elicited the same response that the certificate was forged. Vide letter dated 26th January 2024, the Respondent sought a detailed explanation from the petitioner and the same was expected by 29th January 2024 and by letter of even date the petitioner stated that the attachments provided earlier were self-explanatory but denied being in possession of a forged KCPE certificate and maintained that the certificate was valid. According to the petitioner, how could the certificate dated 7th March 1985 be in valid if the certificate was evidence that the fee to sit the examination had been paid. The petitioner added that the KNEC portal had his credential under the name Peter Z. Omwodo, while the National Identity Card read Peter Z. Omuodo. Regrettably, none of the parties provided a copy of the Petitioners identity card to ascertain when it was issued. It is intriguing that various documents of the Petitioner bore different names yet the Birth certificate issued on 28th June 1977 and from which other documents could capture the name for consistency did not help. Going by the Birth certificate all the petitioners’ documents ought to have read Peter Zachary Omuodo. It is unclear to the court why the KCPE Certificate and the KNEC receipts which ought to have been issued under the name on the Birth certificate were not. KCPE registration was based on the Birth certificate or notification of birth though the Birth certificate is the basic document for registration for the examination. While it is true that the Petitioner was a student at Kakamega Primary School, registered and sat the KCPE in 1985, KNEC found that the candidates name had been altered from Peter Z. Omwodo to Peter Z. Omuodo and the name of the candidate’s school and index numbers were hand written on the copy of the certificate. One logical inference that may be drawn is that an attempt was made to have a change of name effected at the KNEC’s offices. The unanswered question is by whom? The basis of the foregoing inference is that while the Birth Certificate read Peter Zachary Omuodo documents issued after it bore a different name Omwodo, a fact the claimant was aware of. Strangely, the petitioner only swore an affidavit on his name on 15th March 2024, after termination of employment. It is discernible that after KNEC re affirmed that the document was still forged, the Respondent continued with disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner vide a letter dated 21st February 2024, which invited him for a hearing slated for 28th February 2024 at 9.00am. The letter indicated the purpose of the hearing and catalogued the rights of the petitioner including the right to be accompanied by a colleague of his choice, call witnesses and cross-examine witnesses. Although the petitioner deponed that he did not receive the invitation letter, records availed by the respondent revealed that the petitioner collected and signed for the letter on the same date and was aware of the hearing date. Hearing was however adjourned to 7th March, 2024 but the Petitioner did not attend having submitted a Notice of Early Retirement dated on 29th February 2024 received on 1st March 2024 and the effective date was immediate. Documentary evidence on record revealed that the petitioner did not attend the adjourned hearing which proceeded in his absence and the committee resolved that the respondent proceeds in accordance with the directive of the Public Service Commission. Termination of employment followed vide letter dated 12th March 2024 which the claimant received on the following day, a fact he admitted in the Supporting Affidavit. While the petitioner averred that the respondent rejected his request for early retirement and the termination of his employment was malicious, the Respondent maintained that it terminated the petitioner’s employment lawfully for the forged KCPE Certificate. The issues for determination are: 1. Whether the petitioner’s notice of early retirement terminated the employment relationship or his employment was terminated by the respondent unlawfully. 2. Depending on the finding in (i) above whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought. On early retirement and as adverted to elsewhere in this judgment, the petitioner served the Respondent with a notice of early retirement dated 29th February 2024 effective immediately. However, the respondent appears to have ignored the notice. The statutory framework on retirement including early retirement is contained in the Public Service Commission Act. Under Section 2 “Retirement ‘means’ the exit of an officer from the public service with full separation benefits, including pension benefits as may be provided for in the applicable law contract of service or a special retirement scheme agreed upon between the public officer and the relevant lawful authority.” In addition, under Regulation 71, the application for early retirement may be made via email, registered post or hand delivered to the authorized officer and retirement takes effect after 3 months from the date of delivery or registration of the application at the post office. However, the application for early retirement may be rejected where the retirement is aimed at avoiding anticipated or on-going disciplinary cases. Under Section 81 of the Act on Retirement, on attainment of fifty years; Where a public officer has attained the age of fifty-five years and has been in the service for an aggregate period of at least five years, the public officer may opt to retire by giving the authorized officer at least three months’ notice. A plain reading of the foregoing provisions leaves no doubt that the petitioners alleged notice of early retirement did not comply with the law and was thus ineffective and of no consequence and as found in **James Koskei Chirchir v Charman Board of Governors Eldoret Polytechnic (2011) KECA 335 (KLR)** “The appellants employment did not terminate with retirement. He was dismissed.” On termination of employment, it is trite law that under the provisions of the Employment Act for a termination of employment to pass the fairness test it must be shown that the employer had a valid and fair reason to do so, the reason(s) related to the employee’s conduct, capacity or compatibility or the operational requirements of the employer and the procedure adopted by the employer to effect the termination of employment must have been fair. In **Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission (2013) eKLR** Linnet Ndolo J (as she then was) held: *“In light of the foregoing, I find that Respondent had a genuine reason for terminating the claimant’s employment as required under section 43 of the Employment Act. However, for a termination to pass the fairness test, it must be shown that there was not only substantive justification for the termination but also procedural fairness.”* A similar holding was made in **Naima Khamis v Oxford University Press (E.A) Ltd (2017) eKLR.** **Reason** The notice to show cause dated 24th October 2023 informed the petitioner that a verification process had found out that his KNEC KCPE Certificate was forged and sought an explanation within 7 days which, in the courts view was sufficient notice and the petitioner responded by availment of documents and later gave some explanation at the instigation of the respondent. The petitioner did not attend the disciplinary hearing or appeal the dismissal from employment as he had tendered a notice of early retirement which as found elsewhere in this judgment was ineffectual. Other than being non-complaint with the provisions of Section 81 of the Public Service Commission Act and the attendant regulations, the petitioner had an on-going disciplinary process and had already been invited to attend a hearing vide letter dated 21st February 2024 whose receipt he acknowledged on the same day. The respondent was thus not bound to accept notice of early retirement. The dismissal letter dated 12th March, 2024, was explicit that the reason for dismissal from employment was the forged KCPE Certificate as found and confirmed by the KNEC. Section 43 of the Employment Act provides that: 1. … 2. The reason or reasons for termination of a contract are the matters that the employer at the time of termination of the contract genuinely believed to exist and which caused the employer to terminate the services of the employee. In **Kenya Revenue Authority v Gitahi & 2 others (2019) KECA 300 (KLR),** the Court of Appeal held as follows: *“The standard of proof is an a balance of probability not beyond reasonable doubt and all the employer is required to prove are the reasons that it “genuinely believed to exist” causing it to terminate the employee’s services. That is a partly subjective test…”* See also **Galgalo Jarso Jillo v Agricultural Finance Corporation (2021) eKLR.** Applying the foregoing provisions and propositions of law to the facts of this case, it is clear that the respondent had a reasonable basis to belief that it had a reason(s) to terminate the petitioner’s employment. The foregoing is fortified by the fact that the verification of academic and professional certificates was at the instigation of the Public Service Commission and the Kenya National Examinations Council confirmed that the certificate was forged and being the issuing authority, the respondent relied on the representation by KNEC. From the foregoing, it is the finding of this court that the respondent had a substantive justification to terminate the petitioner’s employment under Section 44 of the Employment Act. **Procedure** Under Section 45 (2) (c) of the Employment Act the procedure employed by the employer to terminate the employee’s employment must be fair. Section 41 of the Employment Act prescribes the elements of procedural fairness such as explanation of the grounds of termination of employment in a language understood by the employee, grounds of termination of employment, entitlement of the employee to a fellow employee or shop floor representative of his or her choice during the explanation and hearing and considering any representations made by the employee or the person chosen by the employee. See in this regard **Pius Machafu Isindu v Lavington Security Guards Ltd (2017) eKLR and Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui (2019) eKLR.** Applying the foregoing principles to the facts of the instant case, the court is satisfied that the respondent conducted the termination of the petitioners employment fairly in that it accorded the petitioner sufficient time to respond to the charge and extended time to enable him submit a detailed explanation, was invited for a disciplinary hearing did not attend but the proceedings proceeded and a recommendation made and the outcome was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 12th March 2024 which he collected on 13th March 2024. Regrettably, the letter of dismissal did not inform the petitioner that he had the right of appeal and the period within which the right was exercisable. This is important because the decision to dismiss the petitioner from employment was made by the secretarial or management under the Managing Director which is not the final authority in a state corporation or ordinarily registered company, where the board of directors is the policy and decision-making body and under whose authority all decisions are made. The board of directors takes responsibility for acts and omissions of the secretariat and being the final authority in decision making its seal is indispensable in a termination of employment as the final appellate body. Under Section 45 of the Employment Act, a termination of employment shall be unfair for purposes of this part where; 1. The termination is for one of the reasons specified in section 46; or 2. It is found out that in all the circumstances of the case, the employer did not act in accordance with justice and equity in terminating the employment of the employee. 3. In deciding whether it was just and equitable for an employer to terminate the employment of an employee for the purposes of this section a labour officer or the Industrial court shall consider; 4. The procedure adopted by the employer in reaching the decision to dismiss the employee, the communication of that decision to the employee and the handling of any appeal against the decision. 5. The conduct and capability of the employee up to the date of termination. 6. The extent to which the employer has complied with any statutory requirements connected with the termination, including the issuing of a certificate under section 51 and the procedural requirements set out in section 41. 7. The previous practice of the employer in dealing with the type of circumstances which led to the termination; and 8. The existence of any previous warning letters to the employee. Clearly, although the respondent substantially complied with the requirements of Section 41 of the Employment Act, it did not inform the petitioner that he had the right of appeal to the respondent’s board of directors for a final decision on the matter. Needless to gainsay, the right of appeal is an integral part of the overarching right of fair hearing and its denial by the respondent impeded his right to fair hearing thus rendering the termination of employment unfair within the meaning of section 45 (4) and (5) of the Employment Act. For the foregoing reasons it is the finding of this court that termination of the petitioner’s employment by the Respondent on 12th March 2024 was unfair for want of procedural propriety. **Appropriate relief** Before delving into the specific reliefs prayed for by the petitioner, it is essential to note that after termination of employment by the respondent petitioner was interrogated by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations. He equally followed up with the KNEC to rectify the certificate and swore an affidavit confirming that Peter Zachary Omuodo and Peter Zachary Omwodo was the same person and a certified copy of the KCPE was forwarded from Kakamega Primary School Serial number 0755474 under the name Peter Z. Omuodo received by the respondent on 8th October 2024, almost 7 months later. The petitioner was thus cleared of any wrong doing and was paid two (2) months salary in *lieu* of notice and pension dues less the amount owed to the Respondent as directed by the petitioner. Concerning the declarations sought, it is essential to note that the petitioner provided no verifiable or credible evidence of violation of any constitutional right. Indeed, the instant dispute was a typical plain vanilla employment dispute as exemplified by the main reliefs sought. The only declaration merited is that termination of the petitioner’s employment by the respondent was unfair. Other declarations sought are declined. Salary allowances and benefits payable till retirement in 2029 are not payable for the simple reason that they were not earned by or payable to the petitioner as no services were rendered. Section 17 (1) of the Employment Act is clear on when salary, allowances and other benefits are payable to an employee Service must be rendered for payment to be made. This is a claim for anticipatory earnings, which lack a legal basis. See **Engineer Gachuri v Energy Regulatory Commission, and D K Njagi Marete v Teachers Service Commission (2023) eKLR** on anticipatory earnings. The prayer is declined Equally, the salary, allowances and benefits between termination and date of judgment were not earned or became payable to the petitioner under section 17(1) of the Employment Act and thus not available. The prayer is dismissed. On pension, gratuity and terminal benefits, the petitioner provided no particulars of the latter two prayers. However, pension was paid to the petitioner. The contract of employment dated15th January 1997 had no provision for gratuity. More significantly, the petitioner was appointed on permanent and pensionable terms after the 6 months probationary period. Gratuity as the name suggests is a gratuitous payment by the employer to the employee in appreciation of the services rendered. It is not contributory and it is embedded either in the contract of employment or the collective Bargaining Agreement if any. In the instant case, none of these situations obtained. The sums claimed as general damages (Kshs.3,000,000), aggravated damages (Kshs.2,000,000.00) and Exemplary damages (Kshs.2000,000.00) were unmerited and are declined because the petitioner did not establish entitlement to any form of damages as no loss was evidentiary demonstrated. The prayer is declined. On protective orders the Respondent is directed to expunge all adverse records from the petitioner’s employment file. As regards a permanent injunction to restrain the Respondent from publishing, circulating or maintaining allegations that the petitioner forged academic certificates, the petitioner provided no evidence to show that the respondent had published or intended to do so at any point in future. Bearing in mind that there is no employment relationship between the parties, the court is not persuaded that there is any possibility of the respondent publishing, circulating or maintaining that the petitioner forged any document. The above-mentioned order of expunction of all adverse documents from the petitioner’s employment file is sufficient. The prayer is declined. Finally, as regards 12 months salary compensation for unfair termination of employment, having found that termination of the petitioner’s employment by the respondent was procedurally unfair the petitioner is entitled to compensation by dint of section 49 of the Employment Act. In determining the quantum of compensation, the court has taken into consideration the following circumstances; 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent since 1997 for over 25 years, which is a long time and had no recorded instances of misconduct. 2. The petitioner did not express his wish to remain in the employment of the respondent and purported to retire early during the currency of the disciplinary process. 3. The petitioner did not appeal the respondent’s decision. 4. The respondent paid salary in salary *lieu* of notice and pension dues to the petitioner after he was cleared by DC and the KNEC. 5. As at the date of termination of employment, the respondent had a valid and fair reason to do so as confirmed by the KNEC. The respondent relied solely on the findings of the KNEC, the custodian of examination records and had to act in accord with the directive of the Public Service Commission. In the circumstances the court is satisfied that the equivalent of three (3) months gross salary is fair, Kshs.224,847.00 In conclusion, judgment is entered in favour of the petitioner against the respondent in the following terms. 1. Declaration that termination of employment was procedurally unfair. 2. Respondent shall expunge all adverse documents from the petitioner’s employment records within 30 days. 3. Three (3) months gross salary Kshs.224,847.00 4. For the avoidance of doubt all other reliefs are declined. 5. Parties shall bear their own costs. **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI ON THIS 22ND JULY, 2026** **DR. JACOB GAKERI** **JUDGE** **ORDER** In view of the declaration of measures restricting court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They have waived compliance with **Order 21 Rule 1** of **the Civil Procedure Rules**, which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open court. In permitting this course, this court has been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of **Section 1B** of the **Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya)** which impose on this court the duty of the court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes. **DR. JACOB GAKERI** **JUDGE**