[2023] KEELRC 1422 (KLR)
The court held that allowing the claimant to rely on an affidavit that was part of an application already heard and determined would amount to relitigating an issue that has already been concluded. The court emphasized that parties must rely only on material properly placed before the court for the current...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELRC 1422 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Judith Adhiambo Yamo; Respondent: Kenya Rural Roads Authority
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E808 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Evidentiary Objection During Hearing
- Outcome
- Objection upheld; affidavit excluded from evidence in main suit.
- Judges
- Nzioki wa Makau
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Affidavit Use, Contract Non Renewal, Procedural Fairness
- 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
Judith Adhiambo Yamo
Applicant
Kenya Rural Roads Authority
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Evidentiary Objection During Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether documents used in a previously determined application can be relied upon in the main suit.
- 2 Whether reference to an affidavit from a concluded application constitutes relitigation of settled issues.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that allowing the claimant to rely on an affidavit that was part of an application already heard and determined would amount to relitigating an issue that has already been concluded. The court emphasized that parties must rely only on material properly placed before the court for the current proceedings. As the respondent had already specified the documents it would rely on for its defence, and the affidavit in question was not among them, the objection to its use was upheld. The court declined to consider the affidavit and directed that the case proceed without reference to it.
Court Disposition
Objection upheld; affidavit excluded from evidence in main suit.
Orders
- The objection by the respondent is upheld.
- The affidavit from the previously determined application shall not be relied upon in the main suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Yamo v Kenya Rural Roads Authority (Cause E808 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 1422 (KLR) (17 May 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELRC 1422 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause E808 of 2021
Nzioki wa Makau, J
May 17, 2023
Between
Judith Adhiambo Yamo
Claimant
and
Kenya Rural Roads Authority
Respondent
Ruling
1. Objection is taken to the line of questions by the Claimant’s Counsel. It is stated that the Affidavit referred to was part of application that was heard and determined and therefore not part of what the Respondent is relying on its defence. Mr Mulili thus urges the Court to disallow the question.
2. The Claimant is of a different opinion and asserts through Counsel that facts remain facts. Miss Kimani states that the clause is what led to the non-renewal of the contract and relates to the matter at hand.
3. The Court heard Mr Mulili in his reply to state that he does not understand how documents that were used for an application heard and determined by the court can be relied on in the main suit. He asserts that he does not see how there is reliance to be placed on the document yet the Respondent has stated what it will rely on for its defence.
4. Parties in any dispute before the court place material before the court that can be relied on for purposes of determining the dispute. The Respondent has placed before the court certain documents it seeks to rely on for its defence and as such regurgitating the motion that was heard and determined does not bode well as it will be akin to relitigating an issue before the same court. As the court is being invited to look into material that was subject of a different process that was concluded, the Court will decline to do so and this upholds the objection taken by the Respondent. Case to proceed with this in mind.So ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 17TH DAY OF MAY 2023Nzioki wa MakauJUDGE