[2002] KEHC 522 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to produce the investigator's report as evidence because the report was prepared on instructions of Anjarwalla & Company, not the plaintiff. The plaintiff had never met the maker of the document and could not establish the maker's unavailability as required under...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 522 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ernest Lange; Plaintiff: Christel B. Lange; Defendant: Beatrice Kariuki; Defendant: Gunter Keller
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 590 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome
- Objection upheld; investigator's report excluded from evidence.
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Documentary Evidence, Hearsay Rule
- 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
Ernest Lange
Plaintiff
Christel B. Lange
Plaintiff
Beatrice Kariuki
Defendant
Gunter Keller
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff can produce an investigator's report as evidence when it was prepared on instructions of a third party.
- 2 Whether the requirements of Sections 33 and 35 of the Evidence Act for admissibility of documentary evidence have been satisfied.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to produce the investigator's report as evidence because the report was prepared on instructions of Anjarwalla & Company, not the plaintiff. The plaintiff had never met the maker of the document and could not establish the maker's unavailability as required under Section 35(1) of the Evidence Act. Only Anjarwalla & Company, as the instructing party, could lay the necessary foundation to invoke the provisions of Sections 33 and 35. As such, the requirements for admissibility of the document as secondary evidence were not satisfied, and the objection to its production was upheld.
Court Disposition
Objection upheld; investigator's report excluded from evidence.
Orders
- The objection to the production of the investigator's report is upheld.
- The investigator's report is excluded from evidence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CIVIL SUIT NO. 590 OF 1996
ERNEST LANGE
CRHISTEL B. LANGE ……………………………………. APLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
BEATRICE KARIUKI
GUNTER KELLER …….…………………………………. DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
Before me for hearing is a suit filed by the plaintiff claiming compensation from the defendants for damage caused to her house by a fire. The Ruling is a result of an objection raised by Mr. Asige on the production of an investigator’s report by the plaintiff. According to him, the plaintiff was not the beneficiary of the said report as it was addressed to the instructing party who were Anjarwalla & Company. He further submitted that no proper basis had been laid to show that the report can be produced byThe plaintiff and the provisions of Section 33 and 35 of the evidence have been satisfied.
Mr. Khanna for the plaintiff was however of the view that the plaintiff could safely produce the report as it was prepared for the sole purpose of being used in further proof of her claim.
It is not in dispute the document was prepared on instructions of Njarwalla & Company and it has not been shown that a representative of the Company cannot be availed to produced the same under the Provisions of Sections 33 and 35 of the Evidence Act. The plaintiff in this case, said she never met the maker of the document and since she never gave the instructions towards preparation of the report, I am inclined to agree with Mr. Asige. The Provisions of Section 35(1) are very clear as to when such a document can be admitted. The proviso therein reads as follows:
“Provided that the Condition that the maker of the statement shall be called as a witness need not be satisfied if he is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence or if h is attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which in the circumstances of the case appears to the court unreasonable”
From the submissions by Mr. Khanna and the plaintiff evidence, the whereabouts of the witness are said to be unknown by the plaintiff. What about Anjarwalla & Company who had given the instructions? Since the plaintiff does not know the witness, it is only Anjarwalla & Company who can lay the basis to invoke the provisions of Section 33 – 35 of the Evidence Act. For the said reasons, the objection is upheld.
Dated at Mombasa this 29th day of November, 2002.
P.M. TUTUI
COMMISSIONER OF ASSIZE