[2020] KEHC 7370 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was improperly received as he was not sworn before testifying, contrary to statutory requirements. To uphold the integrity of the proceedings and ensure justice, the court determined that the plaintiff must be recalled to give evidence on oath. Directions for receiving...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 7370 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Charles Meto; Defendant: Amos Kosgey; Defendant: David Mugun; Defendant: Collins Sainna; Defendant: CAD Holdings Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 82 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Procedural Irregularity Before Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiff to be recalled to give evidence on oath; directions to be issued.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Oath Requirement, Evidence Admissibility, Procedural Irregularity
- 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
Charles Meto
Plaintiff
Amos Kosgey
Defendant
David Mugun
Defendant
Collins Sainna
Defendant
CAD Holdings Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Procedural Irregularity Before Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's evidence is admissible when given without being sworn.
- 2 What is the appropriate remedy when evidence is received without oath in civil proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was improperly received as he was not sworn before testifying, contrary to statutory requirements. To uphold the integrity of the proceedings and ensure justice, the court determined that the plaintiff must be recalled to give evidence on oath. Directions for receiving this evidence would be given, considering the plaintiff's residence in the United States of America.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff to be recalled to give evidence on oath; directions to be issued.
Orders
- The plaintiff shall be recalled to give evidence on oath.
- Directions on the manner of receiving the plaintiff's evidence to be given at the reading of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
COMMERCIAL AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION
CIVIL SUIT NO. 82 OF 2014
CHARLES METO.............................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
AMOS KOSGEY.....................................................................1ST DEFENDANT
DAVID MUGUN.....................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
COLLINS SAINNA................................................................3RD DEFENDANT
CAD HOLDINGS LIMITED.................................................4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This court was expected to deliver judgment in this matter today. The trial of this matter commenced on 18th September 2019. On that day as the plaintiff was about to take the stand, to testify, my court assistant informed me that there was a problem with the recording system. Proceedings in the Commercial & Tax Division of the High Court Nairobi are recorded as a pilot scheme of the Judiciary. Having been told of that problem I ordered for a short adjournment to enable ICT officers to rectify the problem.
2. On resuming the hearing the plaintiff Charles Metto, as the proceedings reveal, did not take an oath and proceeded to testify as though he had. It follows that his evidence was taken without him having been sworn. Section 14 of Oaths and Statutory Act Cap 15 provides that:
“14. Authority to administer oaths and affirmations
All courts and persons having by law or consent of the parties authority to receive evidence are authorized to administer, by themselves or by an officer empowered by them in that behalf, oaths and affirmations in discharge of the duties or in exercise of the powers imposed or conferred upon them by law.”
3. It was necessary for the plaintiff to be sworn before testifying.
4. What then should be done, now that it is clear the evidence of the plaintiff was received without the plaintiff having taken oath? I believe the interest of justice will best be served by the plaintiff being recalled to give evidence on oath. At the reading of this Ruling I will give directions on how that evidence will be received, because I was informed during the trial, that the plaintiff is a resident of United States of America.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this11thday of March2020.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Ruling read in open court in the presence of
Court Assistant..............................Sophie
…………………………..for the Plaintiff
……………………….for the Defendants