Aluoch v Kenya Ports Authority & another (Cause E071 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1756 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to compel document production because the claimant's notice was too vague, showing precision in requests matters.
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 Claimant's Notice to Produce dated 6 June 2024 was properly crafted and capable of founding an order for production of documents
- 2.Whether the 1st Respondent should be directed to produce the Claimant's personal, medical and confidential files and two recorded tapes of the disciplinary hearing
Key legal issues
#The legal framework and purpose of a notice to produce documents
A notice to produce under Section 69 of the Evidence Act serves pre-trial discovery; documents sought must be clearly specified and relevant to the controversy
The court set out Section 69 of the Evidence Act as the framework, adopted Halsbury's Laws on the function of discovery, and endorsed Concord Insurance and Oracle Production on the purpose of discovery - levelling the litigation field, reducing costs and eliminating surprise - linking discovery to Article 159 and the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 case management objectives.
Whether the Claimant's Notice to Produce was proper
The notice was deficient and too general; it read as an application to the court rather than a notice to the Respondent, and specificity could not be cured by a later affidavit
The court held the notice failed to specify the documents, time and place of production. A generalised demand for all documents relating to employment is not a proper demand under a notice to produce, and the Claimant's rejoinder affidavit could not supply the missing specificity after the notice.
Whether the Respondent's filed documents sufficiently answered the requisition
The two bundles filed by the 1st Respondent under its lists of documents sufficiently reflected what the Claimant sought, so no further order for production was warranted
The Respondent asserted the personal, confidential and medical files were already on record, denied knowledge of any tapes, and filed additional documents (MK2). The court, considering the general crafting of the notice, held the filed bundles sufficed and declined to order further production.
Legal principles established
#- A notice to produce must clearly and specifically identify the documents, time and place of production; a generalised demand cannot found an order for production
- Specificity cannot be supplied after the fact through an affidavit where the notice itself was general
Court orders
#- 1.Declined to issue an order for the production of any further documents by the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act; interlocutory application under Section 69 of the Evidence Act (Cap 80)
Relief refused
#Order compelling the Respondents to produce the Claimant's personal, medical and confidential files and two recorded tapes of the disciplinary hearing
The Notice to Produce was deficient, too general and lacking specificity, and the documents already filed by the Respondent sufficiently reflected what the Claimant sought
Costs
No costs order 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.
In the upshot, I decline to issue an order for the production of any further documents by the Respondents.
it does not appear to be a notice addressed to the Respondent to produce documents, but an application to the court to direct production of certain documents. In my view, it was too general a requisition, with no specificity on the documents required to be produced.
A similar view was expressed by Havalock, J [ as he then was] in Concord Insurance Co. Ltd v NIC Bank Ltd [2013] eKLR.
The true purpose of discovery is to level the litigation field, to expedite the hearing, reduce costs and also allow parties to gauge the case they will face at the trial
The documents that a party seeks to have produced must be seen as relevant to the controversy at hand.
Issues in the judgment
#Typographical error in the disposition paragraph
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Aluoch v Kenya Ports Authority & another (Cause E071 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1756 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). CAUSE E072/2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1756/eng@2025-04-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.