Ouche v Weza Care Solutions (Claim E086 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1435 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court struck out a sexual harassment investigation report because it relied on recordings produced without the required evidence certificate.
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 Investigation Report of Allegations of Sexual Harassment, comprising recorded conversations and interviews, is admissible without a certificate under section 106E of the Evidence Act and without the audio recordings.
Key legal issues
#Admissibility of an investigation report containing recorded conversations without a section 106E certificate and audio recordings
The report was struck out, with leave to the Respondent to avail the recording, transcript and certificate within one week.
The Court noted the report contained sections indicating recorded conversations and interviews. It was not a transcript, and the electronic record underlying it was not accompanied by a certificate or audio. The Court held it impossible to separate the parts of the report capable of standing alone without the certificate, so the entire report was struck out, with an opportunity to cure the defect.
Legal principles established
#- Electronic evidence may not be produced without a certificate issued under section 106E of the Evidence Act.
- Where a report embeds recorded conversations and interviews that cannot be separated from the electronic record, the integrity of the process requires production of the audio recording and certificate.
Court orders
#- 1.The Investigation Report as filed is struck out.
- 2.The Respondent is granted one week to avail the audio recording, transcript and certificate under section 106E of the Evidence Act.
- 3.The witness on the stand is stood down pending compliance.
- 4.The Respondent may call any other witness it wishes, provided any witness on the stand abides by the preparation of the report as directed.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in the extract
Relief refused
#Claimant's request for outright expungement of the report
The Court instead allowed the Respondent one week to cure the defect by availing the recording, transcript and certificate.
Costs
No costs order made in the extract.
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.
It would therefore, in the mind of the Court, be in relation to the integrity of the process if a certificate together with the audio recording of the recorded conversations be availed.
To that end the Court strikes out the report as filed and will give the Respondent one week to avail the recording and transcript together with the certificate
Witness on the stand is stood down pending the compliance.
Issues in the judgment
#The extract contains no case number, neutral citation or full party names, and no costs order; identification fields cannot be completed from the judgment.
The judgment refers to section 106E of the Evidence Act; the statutory provision governing certification of electronic evidence is commonly numbered 106B, suggesting a possible misnumbering in the judgment itself.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ouche v Weza Care Solutions (Claim E086 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1435 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1435/eng@2025-05-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.