Kunga v Credit Bank PLC (Cause E555 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 685 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a worker's bid for company documents because she never explained why each document mattered to her case.
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 Respondent had supplied the documents sought in the Notice of Motion dated 15th August 2024
- 2.Whether the Claimant justified the relevance and necessity of the documents sought, particularly the Vault Access Register and the description of the six General Ledger entries
- 3.Whether the application for production of documents should be allowed
Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant's production application met the requirement of demonstrable relevance and necessity
It did not; apart from listing documents, the Claimant made no effort to show how they would advance her case
The court reiterated its earlier ruling of 31st July 2024 in the same matter, relying on Concord Insurance and Selecta Kenya, that each document sought must be justified by demonstrable relevance and necessity. The Claimant merely catalogued documents without explaining their relevance. The court also invoked Timothy Njoya on the need to state the information required, the right advanced, and how the information assists.
Whether the Respondent could resist production of the Vault Access Register on privacy and data-protection grounds
The court did not determine this head-on; it dismissed the application because the Claimant failed to demonstrate relevance and necessity
The Respondent deponed that the Access Register contains customer and employee data whose disclosure would breach Article 31 of the Constitution and Sections 25 and 26 of the Data Protection Act. The court did not rule expressly on the privacy objection, resting dismissal instead on the Claimant's failure to justify the request.
Legal principles established
#- An application for discovery must be accompanied by a justification for production based on demonstrable relevance and necessity for each document sought
- A party seeking production of documents must state clearly the information required, the right they wish to advance and how the information would assist in advancing that right
- A party cannot use discovery to coerce the opposing party to prove its pleadings; that amounts to abuse of court process
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's application dated 15th August 2024 is dismissed with costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discovery and case-management powers of the Employment and Labour Relations Court
Relief refused
#Production of the Policy document on posting of General Ledger Accounts and Archival of Vouchers
Respondent had supplied its Branch Policy dated 21st September 2022 in response; Claimant did not demonstrate relevance of a different policy
Access Register of the Vault for period between 14th December 2022 and March 2023
Information is highly sensitive and confidential, containing customer and employee data whose disclosure would breach Article 31 of the Constitution and the Data Protection Act; Claimant did not demonstrate relevance and necessity
Detailed description of all six entries passed through the General Ledger Accounts and officers who supervised them
Request is ambiguous and incapable of compliance or enforcement
Costs
costs in the cause
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.
an application for discovery must be accompanied by a justification for production, based on demonstrable relevance and necessity for each document sought
a party seeking production of documents must state clearly the information required, the right they wish to advance and how the information sought would assist in the advancement of that right
what the Claimant seeks to achieve is to coerce the Respondent to prove its pleadings at the discovery stage, which would amount to abuse of the court process
The said application is therefore dismissed with costs in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is cited as Timothy Njoya v Attorney General [2014] eKLR with Lenaola J, but the year given (2014) may be inconsistent with the known citation; the judgment itself supplies only this citation so it is recorded as printed
The case number of this matter is not stated anywhere in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kunga v Credit Bank PLC (Cause E555 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 685 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/685/eng@2025-03-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.