Owoury v Dawa Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court removed confidential company documents from a former employee's case because she obtained them through her job without permission.
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 List and Bundle of Documents containing Dawa Limited's Dialogue Organization Charts, internal payroll correspondence and the Anjarwalla & Khanna LLP invoice should be expunged from the record as confidential, irrelevant and/or illegally obtained
- 2.Whether an order should issue restraining the Claimant from disclosing the information in those documents to other parties
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Expungement of confidential third-party and unauthorized corporate documents from a party's bundle
Application allowed as unopposed; the impugned documents are expunged, the court being satisfied exclusion may not prejudice the claimant
The court noted the claimant produced documents (organization charts, payroll correspondence, a legal invoice) obtained through her role as Group Head of Human Capital Management without authorization. She filed no response or explanation. Weighing confidentiality, third-party privacy and relevance concerns against possible prejudice, the court found exclusion unlikely to prejudice her case and allowed expungement unopposed.
Sufficiency of the employer's burden of proof if the documents are expunged
The court accepted that expungement would not prejudice the claimant since the statutory burden of proving the reason for termination rests on the employer
The applicant argued that Sections 43(1) and 5(7) of the Employment Act place the burden of proving the reason for termination and disproving discrimination on the employer regardless of expungement. The court implicitly accepted this reasoning, holding exclusion would not prejudice the claimant and that she may deploy properly obtained documents if her case so requires.
Legal principles established
#- Documents obtained by an employee by virtue of her employment and produced without the employer's authorization may be expunged from the record, particularly where the application is unopposed
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 14th January 2026 is allowed and the impugned documents (Dialogue Organization Charts at pages 25-31, internal payroll emails at pages 47-57 and 64-68, and the Anjarwalla & Khanna LLP invoice at page 34 of the Claimant's Bundle) are expunged from the record
- 2.If the Claimant's case would be prejudiced by exclusion, she may use proper documents properly obtained and seek leave to rely on them
- 3.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution (as read with the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act) - court seized of an employment termination and discrimination cause
Relief refused
#Restraining order limiting disclosure of the information to other parties (Prayer 2)
The ruling only addresses expungement; the final disposition does not expressly grant the confidentiality gag order
Costs
Costs in the cause
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.
Given that the application remain unopposed, I will allow the application as the exclusion of the said documents may not prejudice the claimant’s case and if they may prejudice her case, she has to use proper documents to be allowed to use them as part of her evidence. Costs in the cause.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Owoury v Dawa Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Employment and Labour Relations Cause E010 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2562/eng@2026-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.