[2018] KEELC 4735 (KLR)
The court found that the 5th Defendant had established a sufficient basis for the production of the two title deeds at this stage, noting that the documents are directly relevant to the issues raised in the green cards already in evidence. The court emphasized that the Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 4735 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Anastacia Ntakira (suing as legal representative of the estate of Kwiriga Mwamba (Deceased)); Defendant: Christopher M’Mwari Anthony; Defendant: Festus K. Kathendu; Defendant: David Gituma; Defendant: Honourable Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 31 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Ruling on Application for Production of Title Deeds and Scene Visit
- Outcome
- Application allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Production of Title Deeds, Admissibility of Evidence, Scene Visit, Cross Examination
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Anastacia Ntakira (suing as legal representative of the estate of Kwiriga Mwamba (Deceased))
Plaintiff
Christopher M’Mwari Anthony
Defendant
Festus K. Kathendu
Defendant
David Gituma
Defendant
Honourable Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Application for Production of Title Deeds and Scene Visit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 5th Defendant should be allowed to produce two title deeds at this stage of the proceedings.
- 2 Whether allowing production of the title deeds would prejudice the Plaintiff or violate principles of fairness.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 5th Defendant had established a sufficient basis for the production of the two title deeds at this stage, noting that the documents are directly relevant to the issues raised in the green cards already in evidence. The court emphasized that the Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by the introduction of these documents, particularly since the Plaintiff's counsel had previously inquired about the issuance of the titles. The court relied on the principle that additional evidence may be admitted if it enables a party to present their case fully without causing undue prejudice to others. Accordingly, the application was allowed, and the 5th Defendant was permitted to...
Court Disposition
Application allowed.
Orders
- 5th Defendant is permitted to be recalled and produce the two title deeds for parcels 1019 and 1020.
- Other parties are granted the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses in respect of the said documents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC CASE NO 31 OF 21015
ANASTACIA NTAKIRA (suing as legal representative
of the estate of KWIRIGA MWAMBA (DECEASED).........PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CHRISTOPHER M’MWARI ANTHONY...............1ST DEFENDANT
FESTUS K. KATHENDU..........................................2ND DEFENDANT
DAVID GITUMA........................................................3RD DEFENDANT
THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL...4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This ruling is in respect of the application made by the Counsel for 5th Defendant in respect of the scene visit and in respect of production of two title deeds.
2. The scene visit has been agreed upon by all.
3. On the production of the original titles for the two parcels of land 1019 and 1020, Plaintiff’s counsel has objected to the production of the same on the basis that the court should apply same standards to all parties.
4. However, the Court’s concern is the concept of fairness as stated in article 50(1) of the Constitution. The proviso doesn’t state that no documents can be produced during the trial.
5. On the issue of the two title deeds, I believe they are the ones referred to in the two green cards already produced by the 5th defendant. I note that 5th defendant was cross examined at length on the entries in the two green cards and at some point, he stated that he could not interpret the said documents. It follows that the titles referred to in the green cards would shed light on the matter. It cannot be said that Plaintiff stands to be prejudiced since it is Plaintiff’s Counsel who not once or twice but on several occasions inquired as to when the titles were issued.
6. I therefore, find that on 5th Defendant has laid a basis on why they desire to produce the two titles at this stage. To this end, the Court makes reference to the case of Johana Kipkemei Too v Hellen Tum ELC No. 975 of 2012 Nairobi where Munyao Judge stated:-
“where additional evidence brought by a party would avail that party an opportunity to present his/her case in full without causing undue prejudice to other parties in the suit, a Court could accept such evidence….”
7. In the circumstances, I allow the application for 5th Defendant to be recalled and produce the two title deeds. The other parties will be given an opportunity to Cross examine the witnesses in respect of the said documents.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS DAY OF 17th JANUARY, 2018 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
Court Assistant:Janet
Mutunga for Plaintiff present
Mungai for 1st & 3rd Defendant present
Riungu for 5th Defendant absent
Kiety for A.G (4th Defendant) absent
Plaintiff present
HON. L. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE