Okudho v SS Mehta and Sons Limited (Cause E055 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1427 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court confirmed witnesses can give rebuttal evidence on an opponent's documents, even if their written statement never mentioned them.
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's witness may testify, by way of rebuttal, on documents availed by the Claimant in a bundle filed pursuant to the court's directions of 20 March 2025, where the witness's written statement did not address those documents
Key legal issues
#Whether examination of the Respondent's witness on the provenance of documents in the Claimant's bundle is permissible despite the witness's written statement not adverting to them
Yes - the witness may testify in rebuttal on documents the Respondent has availed, and the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 do not bar receipt of such evidence
The objection was grounded on the principle that examination in chief is confined to the written statement. The court held that the Respondent is entitled to rebut documents filed by the Claimant pursuant to the court's directions, and the Respondent's own witness is the proper person to speak to those documents, subject to the witness having direct knowledge. The questions had already been answered and the answer stands on the record, though the court urged the Respondent to move on as the area was covered.
Legal principles established
#- A witness may testify by way of rebuttal to documents filed by the opposing party pursuant to court directions where the receipt of such evidence is not barred by the applicable procedural rules
- A witness can only speak to that which he knows or has direct knowledge of
Court orders
#- 1.Objection overruled
- 2.The testimony adduced by the Respondent's witness on the provenance of the documents remains part of the record
- 3.Examination in chief to continue
- 4.Court urged the Respondent to move on since that area has been covered
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024; matter pending before the ELRC following directions of Radido J. of 22 May 2024
Relief refused
#Claimant's objection to questions put to Respondent's witness Mr. Arif Khan regarding the Claimant's document bundle
The applicable court rules do not bar receipt of the rebuttal evidence, and the Respondent's witness is the proper party to testify on the documents the Respondent has availed
Costs
No order as to costs made
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.
The court is mindful that a person can only speak of that which he knows or has direct knowledge of.
As the foregoing foreshadows, the Objection is overruled and the testimony adduced on that point by Respondent's witness remains as part of the record. Examination in chief to continue.
Issues in the judgment
#The name of the claimant and respondent and the case number are not disclosed in the judgment; parties are referred to only as 'Claimant' and 'Respondent'
The judgment refers to 'my brother Radido J.' whose ruling of 22nd May 2024 was directed to be complied with, but the underlying case number is not given
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okudho v SS Mehta and Sons Limited (Cause E055 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1427 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1427/eng@2025-05-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.