Western Human Rights Forum v Sling Shot Kenya Limited & 2 others; Kenya Revenue Authority & another (Interested Parties) (Petition E010 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2793 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a bid to force employers to hand over staff records, ruling that access to information demands proper legal procedure first.
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 court should direct the respondents to furnish or deposit in court the information or documents listed under paragraph 24 of the petition pending hearing and determination of the petition.
Key legal issues
#Whether the court should direct the respondents to furnish or deposit the documents listed under paragraph 24 of the petition.
The application was dismissed because the petitioner's standing to access third-party records was not disclosed and the petitioner did not follow the Access to Information Act procedure.
The court noted that the interim application replicated the main petition and required interrogation of the petition's genesis. The petitioner asserted he acted for the respondents' employees but did not disclose his standing to claim third-party records. Article 35 access to information is regulated by the Access to Information Act, whose procedures the petitioner did not invoke, making the application premature. The documents also engage third parties' privacy rights under the Data Protection Act. Without determining the merits, the orders sought could not issue.
The employer's statutory duty to keep written particulars and the evidential consequence of non-production.
Employers must keep written particulars for five years after termination and bear the burden of proving or disproving an alleged term of employment if they fail to produce the written contract.
Relying on section 10(6) and (7) of the Employment Act, the court observed that an employer engaging an employee for three months or more must reduce the contract to writing, accurately capture remuneration, and retain the particulars for five years after termination. These provisions benefit the employee and the court, as held in Otunga v Hydro Build Limited. The court flagged these provisions for the parties' attention before any interim orders could issue.
Legal principles established
#- An employer who engages an employee for three months or more must reduce the contract to writing and retain written particulars for five years after termination; failure to produce the written contract shifts the burden of proving or disproving an alleged term of employment to the employer.
- The right of access to information under Article 35 of the Constitution is not absolute and is subject to the modalities and procedural requirements of the Access to Information Act.
- A party invoking Article 22 of the Constitution cannot obtain third-party information without full disclosure of its standing and must follow the Access to Information Act procedure.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 25 March 2025 is dismissed.
- 2.Each party to bear its costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23 and 165(3) of the Constitution (petition invoking Rule 13, 19, 20 of the Constitution of Kenya Rules and Order 40 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules)
Relief refused
#Orders directing the respondents to furnish and/or deposit the information and documents listed in paragraph 24 of the petition pending hearing and determination of the petition.
The petitioner's standing to claim third-party employment records was not disclosed; the right of access to information under Article 35 is not absolute and is subject to the procedure under the Access to Information Act, which the petitioner did not invoke; and the documents concern third parties' privacy rights protected by the Data Protection Act.
Costs
Each party to bear its costs.
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 petitioner has not applied for proceedings under the Access to Information Act. To proceed as herein done is premature.
Without going into the merits of the petition, the orders sought in their nature shall not issue in the given circumstances.
The application dated 25 March 2025 is dismissed. Each party to bear its costs.
His standing with these employees is not disclosed to claim the right to access third-party records and data from the respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#The names of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents are never stated in the judgment, even though the replying affidavit identifies Mohamed Atif Fazil as director of the 1st respondent.
The judgment alternately refers to the petitioner filing the petition 'on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondent employees' - internally inconsistent phrasing suggesting the employees of the 1st and 2nd respondents.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Western Human Rights Forum v Sling Shot Kenya Limited & 2 others; Kenya Revenue Authority & another (Interested Parties) (Petition E010 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2793 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (interlocutory application dated 25 March 2025 within a petition). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2793/eng@2025-10-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.