Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v G4S Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 587 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1433 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that electronic documents cannot be used in court without a certificate, and threw out the uncertified documents entirely.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether documents sought to be produced by the Respondent without a certificate of electronic evidence are admissible under sections 65(5)-(6) and 106B of the Evidence Act
Key legal issues
#Admissibility of electronic records produced without a certificate of electronic evidence
The impugned documents were inadmissible for want of a certificate under section 106B(4); the objection was upheld and the documents expunged.
The court examined sections 65(5) and (6) and 106B of the Evidence Act, which permit computer print-outs and electronic records to be admitted without production of the original only where statutory conditions are satisfied, including a certificate identifying the electronic record, describing its production, and signed by a person in a responsible position. Relying on Ogembo v Yongo and other authorities, the court found the Respondent sought to produce the documents without any such certificate. It held the requirement mandatory, aimed at vouchsafing the authenticity and integrity of electronic records, and accordingly expunged the documents.
Legal principles established
#- Electronic documents are only admissible if accompanied by a certificate under section 106B(4) of the Evidence Act, in both civil and criminal proceedings except where statute excludes strict rules of evidence.
Court orders
#- 1.Upheld the Claimant's objection to the production of the impugned documents
- 2.Expunged the said documents from the record
- 3.Granted the Respondent liberty to proceed minus the said documents
- 4.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; matter proceeding under the Evidence Act (Cap 80) in an employment dispute
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.
I therefore uphold the Claimant’s objection and expunge the said documents ofi the record. The Respondents are free to proceed minus the said documents. Costs in the cause.
It is evidently clear that electronic documents must be accompanied by a certificate in terms of section 106 B (4) of the Evidence act for them to be deemed admissible. There is no other way out.
This is a requirement in civil and criminal cases before courts, except in matters where statutes exclude the application of strict rules of evidence such as the Small Claims Court or specific tribunals.
Issues in the judgment
#Case title, case number and neutral citation are not stated in the judgment text provided.
The court refers to the singular 'Respondent' in its reasoning but the final orders use 'Respondents'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v G4S Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 587 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1433 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1433/eng@2025-05-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.