Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherCause (not stated in judgment)· [2025] KEELRC 2764 (KLR)

Ayara v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited (Cause E1025 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2764 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 October 2025
RSRADIDO STEPHEN
334 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled emails are inadmissible in evidence without a certificate under section 106B(4) of the Evidence Act.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This interlocutory ruling, delivered virtually and signed in Karatina on 9 October 2025 by Radido Stephen, Judge of the Employment and Labour Relations Court, determines objections raised by the Respondent, Kenya Power & Lighting Co Ltd, during the hearing of a cause commenced on 24 June 2025 in which Zilpa Auma Ayara is the Claimant. The Respondent objected to the production and admission of emails contained in the Claimant's bundle, arguing they did not meet the admissibility threshold under sections 106A and 106B of the Evidence Act. It further objected to a salary structure and organogram on the ground that they were not on the Respondent's letterhead and bore no distinguishing mark associating them with the Respondent. The Claimant countered that a Certificate of Electronic Evidence was not a prerequisite for admissibility, that the Respondent had itself filed emails without any such certificate, and that authenticity was not in issue. The court held that emails are electronic records whose admissibility must comply with section 106B of the Evidence Act; section 106B(4) makes a certificate imperative, and since the Claimant produced none, the emails were inadmissible. The salary structure and organogram, bearing no official mark or signatures, were held to be of doubtful pedigree and were also excluded. The court upheld the Respondent's objections. No costs order was made and no authorities were cited.

Key legal issues

#
01

Admissibility of emails without a Certificate of Electronic Evidence

Holding

The emails were inadmissible because the Claimant did not produce the certificate required under section 106B(4) of the Evidence Act

Reasoning

The court held that emails are electronic records whose admissibility must satisfy section 106B of the Evidence Act. Section 106B(4) makes it imperative to place before the court a certificate confirming that the requisite conditions for admissibility have been met. The Claimant's assertion that such a certificate is unnecessary was rejected; without the certificate, the emails could not be admitted.

p. 2
02

Admissibility of a salary structure and organogram of doubtful pedigree

Holding

The documents were excluded because they bore no official mark of the Respondent and no signatures

Reasoning

The Respondent objected that the salary structure and organogram were not on its letterhead and bore no distinguishing mark associating them with it. The court found the documents lacked any official mark and signatures, rendering their provenance doubtful and unfit for admission into evidence.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Admissibility of electronic records such as emails is governed by section 106B of the Evidence Act, which requires a certificate to establish the requisite conditions
  • A certificate under section 106B(4) of the Evidence Act is imperative for electronic records to be admitted

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Objections raised by the Respondent are upheld
  2. 2.The emails in the Claimant's bundle are rendered inadmissible for want of a Certificate under section 106B(4) of the Evidence Act
  3. 3.The salary structure and organogram are excluded from evidence as documents of doubtful pedigree
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over the Cause (statutory basis not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ayara v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited (Cause E1025 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2764 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause (not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2764/eng@2025-10-09

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.