[2017] KEHC 1693 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 1693 (KLR)

The court held that a witness cannot be legally barred from giving explanations during re-examination on matters that were raised during cross-examination, particularly when such explanations are based on documents filed by the petitioner and forming part of the record. The court relied on Section 146(3) of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 1693 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Chris Munga N. Bichage; Applicant: Zaheer Jhanda; Applicant: James F. O Kenani; Respondent: I.E.B.C; Respondent: Julius Meja Okeyo (Returning Officer); Respondent: Richard Nyagaka Tongi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Election Petition 12 & 10 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Election Petitions / Ruling on Admissibility of Re Examination Evidence
Outcome
application for barring witness from re-examination dismissed
Judges
AG Ndung'u
Legal Topics
Re Examination Scope, Admissibility of Evidence, Parliamentary Election Disputes
Source Language
en
Election Petitions Re Examination Scope Admissibility of Evidence Parliamentary Election Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chris Munga N. Bichage

Applicant

Zaheer Jhanda

Applicant

James F. O Kenani

Applicant

I.E.B.C

Respondent

Julius Meja Okeyo (Returning Officer)

Respondent

Richard Nyagaka Tongi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petitions / Ruling on Admissibility of Re Examination Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a witness can be legally barred from giving explanations during re-examination on matters referred to in cross-examination.
  2. 2 Whether new matters introduced in re-examination allow for further cross-examination by the adverse party.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a witness cannot be legally barred from giving explanations during re-examination on matters that were raised during cross-examination, particularly when such explanations are based on documents filed by the petitioner and forming part of the record. The court relied on Section 146(3) of the Evidence Act, which provides that re-examination should be directed to explanations of matters referred to in cross-examination, and if new matter is introduced with the court's permission, the adverse party may further cross-examine on that matter. Therefore, the witness was permitted to provide explanations regarding the Irondi Polling Station as referenced in the relevant form.

Court Disposition

application for barring witness from re-examination dismissed

Orders

  • The witness is permitted to give explanations during re-examination on matters referred to in cross-examination, specifically regarding Irondi Polling Station.