Mugo v Biodeal Laboratory Limited (Cause E401 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 193 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment claim for Kshs. 738,602 collapsed in court because the claimant, under cross-examination, disowned her own Statement of Claim on oath.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Claim, in light of the Claimant's evidence, is tenable
- 2.Whether her contract was terminated by the Respondent unfairly and unlawfully
- 3.Whether she merits the prayers sought
Key legal issues
#Tenability of a claim where the claimant disowns her own pleadings on oath
The Claim was untenable and was declined
The Claimant, though acting in person, explicitly denied her Statement of Claim in cross-examination and asked the Court not to rely on it, while agreeing with the Respondent's advocate's statements. The Court grants latitude to litigants in person but there are limits; it cannot advise parties on evidence or correct sworn statements. With the claim disowned by its own author, there was no tenable case to determine on termination or remedies.
Legal principles established
#- The Court cannot correct or substitute a party's evidence given on oath, even where the party acts in person
- A claimant who disowns their own pleadings on oath renders the claim untenable and the Court need look no further
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim is declined
- 2.No order on the costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Relief refused
#Declaration that termination was unfair and unlawful
The Claim was untenable as the Claimant disowned her own Statement of Claim on oath
Payment of notice pay, salary for days worked, leave allowance, pro-rata leave, gratuity and compensation for unfair termination totalling Kshs. 738,602
The Claim was declined because the Claimant disowned her pleadings and evidence
Certificate of Service, costs and interest
Subsumed in the declining of the entire Claim
Costs
No order on the costs (each party to bear own costs in effect)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
While the Court grants wide latitude to Parties who come before it, acting in person, there is a limit to what the Court can do
The Court cannot advise Parties on what to say in their evidence, or correct what they have stated on oath.
It was shambolic. She explicitly told the Court on cross-examination that, '' I deny my Statement of Claim. It should not be considered.''
a. The Claim is declined. b. No order on the costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Respondent's name not clearly stated in the heading; judgment refers to 'the Respondent' and to Mital Shah as the Respondent's Manager while he also swore the Replying Affidavit
Judgment does not state the full case number of the claim
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mugo v Biodeal Laboratory Limited (Cause E401 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 193 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Statement of Claim filed 13th June 2022 (Employment and Labour Relations Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/193/eng@2025-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.