Muchiri v African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) & another (Cause 663 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 2418 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court allowed an unfairly dismissed employee to reopen her case and add newly found documents, ruling fairness outweighs delay when the other side can respond.
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 case should be reopened and her witness recalled to adduce additional evidence
- 2.Whether the Claimant should be granted leave to file a Supplementary List and Bundle of Documents and a Further Witness Statement
- 3.Whether the application amounts to trial by ambush or an attempt to fill gaps in the Claimant's evidence
- 4.Who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether reopening the Claimant's case after cross-examination and close of her case to adduce additional documents should be permitted
The application was allowed; the court found no prejudice to the Respondents provided they could present further evidence and cross-examine recalled witnesses.
The court acknowledged the application was discretionary and that there had been inordinate delay, partly occasioned by the Respondents who failed to produce documents until compelled. It held that the duty of the court is to resolve cases on all the relevant evidence, and that if the evidence would aid a fair resolution, the party should not be shut out. Since the Respondents would retain the right to present further evidence and cross-examine, the court found no prejudice and allowed the application.
Whether the application amounted to trial by ambush or an improper attempt to seal gaps in the Claimant's case
The court rejected the Respondents' ambush/stage-management objections, holding the documents were known to the Respondents and the Respondents could respond with their own further evidence.
The Respondents argued the application was a back-door attempt to seal gaps identified in cross-examination and would destabilise their defence. The court reasoned that the evidence sought was not foreign to the Respondents, who possessed and relied on the documents when terminating the Claimant, and that any potential prejudice could be cured by allowing the Respondents to present additional evidence and cross-examine. The court did not accept that the reopening would stage-manage the trial.
Legal principles established
#- The jurisdiction to reopen a case and receive additional evidence is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, ensuring no embarrassment or prejudice to the opposite party.
- Where the evidence would aid the court in resolving the dispute fairly and no prejudice results because the opposing party may respond and cross-examine, the court should admit it.
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's case is reopened and the Claimant is allowed to recall her witness and adduce additional evidence
- 2.The Respondents are allowed to present any additional evidence if available to avoid any prejudice
- 3.The Respondents retain the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who may be recalled
- 4.Costs of the application shall be in the cause
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 the employment dispute; Rule 66(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Rules (2024) governing reopening of a hearing
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 find the application is merited and is hereby allowed. Costs shall be in the cause.
The evidence if it would aid the court in resolving a dispute in a fair manner, then the court should not close out the party with such evidence.
It is my finding that there is indeed no prejudice the respondent will sufier in allowing this application so long as they have an opportunity to present any further evidence and also cross examine the witnesses who may be recalled.
It is also true that there has been inordinate delay in the prosecution of this case which delay has been occasioned partly be the respondents who failed to produce documents the applicant sought to relay upon until they were compelled by this court.
Issues in the judgment
#Tension between the court's finding of inordinate delay and the governing principles (that reopening is refused where there is inordinate and unexplained delay), which the court did not expressly resolve before allowing the application.
The Notice to Produce date is inconsistently stated in the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muchiri v African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) & another (Cause 663 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 2418 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Notice of Motion dated 8th April 2025 (Claimant's suit filed by Statement of Claim dated 3rd October 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2418/eng@2025-09-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.