https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1830

Rapuo v Director AIC Kajiado Centre (Petition E016 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 1830 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1830 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru Petition E016 of 2026 J Rika, J June 30, 2026 Between Rose Resiato Rapuo Petitioner and Director AIC Kajiado Centre Respondent Ruling 1.The Petitioner filed her Petition dated 5th March 2026. 2.She states that she was employed by the Respondent as an operations manager. She later became the acting director. 3.She was dismissed on 19th August 2025, while serving as the acting director. 4.She petitions the Court to find that dismissal was unfair, unlawful, and unconstitutional, and grant her general damages. 5.Through an application dated 5th March 2026, she prays the Court to compel the Respondent to supply her ‘’ personal file, containing the contract signed around March 2025...’’ 6.She explains in her supporting affidavit sworn on the same date, that the Respondent has denied her access to the premises, and the necessary documents. The documents are crucial to her Petition. 7.She filed a supplementary affidavit sworn on 21st April 2026, emphasizing that she was denied access to the Centre upon dismissal, and did not take away with her, any personnel records. 8.Keswe Mapena, Manager of AIC Kajiado Care Centre, swore a replying affidavit on 9th April 2026, opposing the application. 9.He explains that the Petitioner was the acting director of the Centre. She was given an opportunity to hand over office when she exited. The handover would include all documents, including her personnel file. She did not hand over to her successor. The Respondent cannot avail to her a file that she did not hand over. 10.Parties agreed at the last appearance before the Court on 22nd April 2026, that the application is considered and determined on the strength of the Parties’ affidavits and submissions. The Court Finds: - 11.The Petitioner is not clear what documents, other than her contract of employment ‘’ signed around March 2025,’’ are contained in her personnel [not personal] file. 12.There is doubt whether her personnel file, is in the custody of the Respondent. The Manager has explained that the Petitioner did not hand over official records, including her personnel file. 13.As the acting director, she was in a position of authority, effectively in control of all the official records. She did not in her original or supplementary affidavit, establish that she handed over the personnel records to her successor. The Court cannot compel the Respondent to supply to her, what is not certain to be in the custody of the Respondent. 14.Both Parties have exhibited documents showing that the Petitioner was an acting director. Her employment and dismissal by the Centre, are not disputed. 15.She is not prejudiced by the non-production of the contract which she states she executed around March 2025. 16.Section 10[7] of the Employment Act provides that, if in any legal proceedings, an Employer fails to produce a written contract or the written particulars, the burden of proving or disproving an alleged term of employment stipulated in the contract, shall be on the Employer. 17.The Respondent need not be compelled to produce the contract of employment. If it does not produce that contract or the written particulars, it will have the onus of proving or disproving alleged terms of the contract. The Petitioner will have the opportunity to adduce oral evidence on her terms of employment. The Respondent, in the absence of a written contract, will have the burden of disproving the Petitioner’s position. 18.In the end, the Court declines to compel the Respondent to supply the Petitioner with her personnel file.It Is Ordered: -a.The application dated 5th March 2026 filed by the Petitioner is declined.b.No order on the costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAKURU, UNDER RULE 68 [5] OF THE E&LRC [PROCEDURE] RULES 2024, THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.JAMES RIKAJUDGE