Manyange v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (Cause E053 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1567 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a former IEBC employee Kshs 153,754 in unpaid dues, but she lost her costs claim for ignoring court directions on filing computations.
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 was denied natural justice by being refused cross-examination on documents allegedly not served
- 2.Whether the Respondent breached the Claimant's contract by failing to pay outstanding remuneration
- 3.What weight should be given to the Claimant's oral testimony where no computations were filed
Key legal issues
#Denial of natural justice / trial by ambush
The Respondent's complaint was misdirected because the documents were produced with its consent and no undisclosed document was placed before the Court
The Claimant produced documents filed with the Statement of Claim with the Respondent's consent. No document said to be unfiled was actually placed before the Court, so there was nothing to cross-examine on. The Respondent, as employer, bore the burden of producing payroll records under sections 17, 18 and 20 of the Employment Act and failed to do so despite court directions.
Burden of proof on outstanding remuneration
The employer's statutory duty to keep payroll records placed the burden on it, and the employee's oral testimony was accepted
Claims were remuneration-based and section 20 of the Employment Act requires the employer to keep payroll records. The Respondent failed to produce records to show payments made. Section 10(1) and (7) of the Employment Act resolves doubt in the employee's favour, so the Claimant's oral testimony of the balance due was accepted.
Legal principles established
#- Where the employer is required to keep payroll records and does not produce them, the benefit of doubt goes to the employee and the court may accept the employee's uncorroborated testimony
- A court cannot allow cross-examination on a document that is not before it; oral testimony carries its own evidential weight
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Claimant in the sum of Kshs 153,754/-
- 2.The award to attract interest at court rates from the date of filing the Cause
- 3.Costs denied to the Claimant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act; contract of employment breach claim)
Relief refused
#Costs of the suit
Claimant failed to comply with court directions to file computations
Leave payment of Kshs 213,464/- claimed
The Claimant herself asked the Court to deduct the leave allowance from the amount claimed
Costs
Costs denied to the Claimant for failing to comply with Court directions on filing of computations (effectively each party to bear own costs; no costs awarded to either party)
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 enters judgment for the Claimant in the sum of Kshs 153,754/-
The award to attract interest at court rates from the date of filing the Cause.
The Claimant is denied costs for failing to comply with Court directions issued on 29 January 2025 on filing of computations.
The benefit of doubt goes to the employee and in this case, the Claimant.
Issues in the judgment
#The Claimant's claimed balance is stated as Kshs 364,209/- in one passage and Kshs 367,209/- in another, and the Respondent's figures appear as Kshs 59,538/-, Kshs 59,561/50 and Kshs 59,561/-
The judgment awards Kshs 153,754/- after deducting Kshs 213,464/- from Kshs 367,209/-, but 367,209 minus 213,464 equals 153,745, a discrepancy of 9 shillings
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Manyange v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (Cause E053 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1567 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1567/eng@2025-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.