[2018] KEELRC 1792 (KLR)
The court found that while the strict provisions of the Evidence Act do not apply in labour matters, the objection to the admissibility of the claimant's statements, alleged to be confessions, was valid due to the lack of proper endorsements and procedural safeguards. Consequently, the court disallowed reference to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 1792 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Sophia Khatenje Shanzu; Respondent: Kenblest Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 406 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome
- Objection to admissibility of claimant's statements upheld; electronic evidence admitted.
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Electronic Evidence, Confessions, Labour Court Procedure
- 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
Sophia Khatenje Shanzu
Claimant
Kenblest Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether statements alleged to be confessions by the claimant are admissible in an employment dispute.
- 2 Whether electronic evidence, specifically a recording and its certificate, meets the requirements for admissibility under section 78A of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the strict provisions of the Evidence Act do not apply in labour matters, the objection to the admissibility of the claimant's statements, alleged to be confessions, was valid due to the lack of proper endorsements and procedural safeguards. Consequently, the court disallowed reference to those statements and directed the respondent to file a new bundle excluding them. However, the court held that the electronic recording and its certificate satisfied the requirements of section 78A(4) of the Evidence Act and allowed their production as evidence. The respondent was ordered to file a transcript of the recording along with the revised bundle of documents.
Court Disposition
Objection to admissibility of claimant's statements upheld; electronic evidence admitted.
Orders
- Respondent to file a bundle of documents excluding the objected statements free of cost.
- Respondent to file a transcript of the electronic recording alongside the revised bundle of documents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
CAUSE NO. 406 OF 2017
SOPHIA KHATENJE SHANZU................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
KENBLEST LIMITED..........................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Under the Evidence Act, confessions as relating to criminal matters are governed by Section 25A of the Act. Under Subsection 25A(2), the Attorney General in consultation with the Law Society of Kenya, the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights and other suitable bodies is to make rules governing the making of confessions in all instances where the confession is not made in court. So far as I am aware, no rules under this Section have been gazetted.
2. In the case before me, the claimant objects to the production of statements produced by the respondent which are in the words of the claimant, confessions. The court has seen the statements are recorded in the way police statements are recorded but do not have the endorsements that are on regular police statements showing the station and whether they were self recorded or recorded by a police officer. Whereas the provisions of the Evidence Act are excluded from strict appliance in labour matters, the objection is one that cannot be taken lightly. The court will accede to the request by claimant and disallow reference to the documents objected to being the statements recorded by the claimant. The respondent is to file a bundle excluding the said document free of cost as the admission of the documents was not the fault of the respondent.
3. The suit will therefore not proceed to hearing as the parties will need to have the correct bundle for use in the trial. The maker of the recording seems aware of the provisions of section 78A. The recording and certificate on the recording indicate the recording was properly undertaken and satisfies the requirements of section 78A(4) of the Evidence Act regarding the electronic evidence. I have heard the recording and the facts therein have to be adduced and can be rebutted on trial.
4. In the premises I allow the production of the electronic evidence. Respondent shall file a transcript of the recording alongside the bundle of documents that the respondent will file after the Ruling herein.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 9th day of April 2018
Nzioki wa Makau
JUDGE