Wycliffe Otieno Odondi v National Bank of Kenya Limited
The bottom line
#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's witness, having adopted his statement, may be led in examination-in-chief beyond the contents of his filed witness statement and bundle of documents
Key legal issues
#Scope of examination-in-chief where a witness statement has been adopted under Rule 7(4) and (5)
The objection was upheld; the witness could not be examined beyond his filed statement and documents, and was to proceed to cross-examination
Rule 7(4) makes the adopted statement the sufficient evidence-in-chief, with only minimal highlighting and document production permitted. Rule 7(5) requires sequential reference to filed documents. Allowing expansion would defeat orderly trials and a party's right to know the case to meet. The Respondent had ample time since filing and service to file a comprehensive statement.
Legal principles established
#- Under Rule 7(4) and (5) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024, an adopted witness statement stands as evidence-in-chief and a party may not expand or embellish testimony beyond it at trial
Court orders
#- 1.Objection by Counsel for the Claimant upheld
- 2.The Respondent's witness, having adopted his statement, is subject to cross-examination in terms of Rule 7(4) and (5) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024, unless Counsel has any other relevant question
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024, Rule 7(4) and 7(5)
Relief refused
#Respondent's request to expand/elucidate its witness's testimony in examination-in-chief beyond the filed statement
Rule 7 of the ELRC Procedure Rules 2024 leaves no room to expand or embellish a witness statement; evidence is not a moving target
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.
Evidence is not a moving target and therefore the requirements to file comprehensive statements in terms of the Rules cannot be overemphasized.
Unless Counsel has any other relevant question, the witness having adopted his statement is subject to cross-examination in terms of Rule 7(4) and (5) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024.
Issues in the judgment
#Delivery date appears inconsistent with case timeline
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wycliffe Otieno Odondi v National Bank of Kenya Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. E090 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2501/eng@2026-09-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.