[2023] KEELC 18518 (KLR)
The court found that, in the interests of justice and given the objections raised regarding the authenticity and signature of the documents, it was appropriate for the documents to be produced by their maker, if available, or by another responsible officer from the Isiolo County Government. This approach ensures the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 18518 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Maryann Mohammed Chebril (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Asha Jabril Mohammed (Deceased)); Defendant: Michael Koome Mburugu; Defendant: Isiolo County Government; Defendant: Jediel Kirimi Rutere; Defendant: Chief Land Registrar; Defendant: The National Land Commission; Defendant: The Director Of Survey; Defendant: The Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Isiolo
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 001 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case / Ruling on Oral Objection to Production of Documents
- Outcome
- Summons issued for production of documents by responsible officer; objection to production by 3rd defendant not upheld at this stage.
- Judges
- PM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Public Documents, Production of Documents, Land Administration
- 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
Maryann Mohammed Chebril (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Asha Jabril Mohammed (Deceased))
Plaintiff
Michael Koome Mburugu
Defendant
Isiolo County Government
Defendant
Jediel Kirimi Rutere
Defendant
Chief Land Registrar
Defendant
The National Land Commission
Defendant
The Director Of Survey
Defendant
The Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case / Ruling on Oral Objection to Production of Documents
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether unsigned minutes and a letter can be produced as evidence by the 3rd defendant.
- 2 Whether the documents in question qualify as public documents under the Evidence Act.
- 3 Whether the makers or knowledgeable officers should be summoned to produce the documents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, in the interests of justice and given the objections raised regarding the authenticity and signature of the documents, it was appropriate for the documents to be produced by their maker, if available, or by another responsible officer from the Isiolo County Government. This approach ensures the authenticity and reliability of the evidence, particularly where the documents are public in nature and their admissibility is challenged. The court exercised its discretion to summon a responsible officer to produce the documents, thereby balancing the need for proper evidentiary procedure with the requirements of fairness and justice.
Court Disposition
Summons issued for production of documents by responsible officer; objection to production by 3rd defendant not upheld at this stage.
Orders
- Summons issued to Isiolo County Government to provide a responsible officer to produce the specified documents on July 17, 2023.
- 3rd defendant’s advocate to serve summons and, if possible, identify the officer to produce the documents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
Chebril(Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Asha Jabril Mohammed (Deceased) v Mburugu & 6 others (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 001 of 2021) [2023] KEELC 18518 (KLR) (4 July 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 18518 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Isiolo
Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 001 of 2021
PM Njoroge, J
July 4, 2023
Between
Maryann Mohammed Chebril(Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Asha Jabril Mohammed (Deceased)
Plaintiff
and
Michael Koome Mburugu
1st Defendant
Isiolo County Government
2nd Defendant
Jediel Kirimi Rutere
3rd Defendant
Chief Land Registrar
4th Defendant
The National Land Commission
5th Defendant
The Director Of Survey
6th Defendant
The Attorney General
7th Defendant
Ruling
1. This short ruling concerns an oral application which objected to the production of 2 documents by the 3rd defendant. The documents were minutes of the meeting of the Isiolo County Council Works Town Planning and Works Committee held on October 28, 1992 and a letter date October 24, 1997 addressed by the Isiolo County Council to the 3rd defendant.
2. Advocate Lakicha argued that the minutes were not signed by the Chairman and were not signed. He also said that in view of the fact that the letter dated 24/10/1997 was signed by the same person who had signed the impugned minutes, Mr Lakicha opined that this raised suspicions. He asked that the makers of the 2 documents or someone with knowledge of the matters concerned at Isiolo County Government be summoned to produce the 2 documents.
3. Advocate Murango Mwenda for the 3rd defendant opposed the objection. He told the court that the said documents were public documents as envisaged by section 82 of the Evidence Act.
4. Upon consideration of this matter, I find it in the interest justice for the said documents to be produced by the maker, if he is still available, or by another officer of the Isiolo County Government.
5. In the circumstances, the following orders are issued;a.Summons is hereby issued directed to Isiolo County Government to provide a responsible officer to come to court on July 17, 2023 to produce the Minutes of the Works Town Planning and Works Committee Meeting held on October 28, 1992 and to produce a letter dated October 24, 1997 addressed to the 3rd defendant.b.The 3rd defendant’s advocate is directed to serve summons upon the County Government of Isiolo and, if possible, to identify in the summons the officer who will come to court to produce the apposite documents.c.Costs shall be in the cause.d.Further hearing on 26/7/2023.
DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT ISIOLO THIS 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2023HON. JUSTICE P.M NJOROGEJUDGE