[2020] KEELC 735 (KLR)
The court held that compliance with procedural rules, particularly those governing the introduction of evidence and witness statements, is fundamental to the fair administration of justice. The court found that the applications to introduce new witness statements were made well outside the timelines set by the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 735 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Dalco Trading Centre; Respondent: Kamaita Imathiu; Respondent: Lawrence N. Mugambi; Respondent: Mohamed Hashin Jamah; Respondent: Land Registrar, Tharaka Nithi County
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 18 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Ruling / Application to Introduce New Witness Statements After Close of Plaintiff's Case
- Outcome
- Applications to introduce new witness statements out of time denied; supporting affidavit deemed as 3rd defendant's witness statement.
- Legal Topics
- Witness Statements, Procedural Timelines, Order 11 Civil Procedure Rules, Admission of Evidence
- 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
Dalco Trading Centre
Applicant
Kamaita Imathiu
Respondent
Lawrence N. Mugambi
Respondent
Mohamed Hashin Jamah
Respondent
Land Registrar, Tharaka Nithi County
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Ruling / Application to Introduce New Witness Statements After Close of Plaintiff's Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should allow the introduction of new witness statements after the expiry of timelines set under Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether procedural rules can be disregarded under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that compliance with procedural rules, particularly those governing the introduction of evidence and witness statements, is fundamental to the fair administration of justice. The court found that the applications to introduce new witness statements were made well outside the timelines set by the court under Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and that there was no sufficient justification for the delay. The court further relied on the Court of Appeal's decision in Telkom Kenya Limited v John Ochanda, which emphasized that Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution does not excuse parties from complying with procedural rules. Consequently, the court denied the oral...
Court Disposition
Applications to introduce new witness statements out of time denied; supporting affidavit deemed as 3rd defendant's witness statement.
Orders
- The two oral applications to introduce two witness statements against the timelines given through a court order are denied.
- The supporting affidavit filed by advocate Wanyanga dated 27.10.2020 is allowed to be deemed as the 3rd defendant’s witness statement.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO. 18 OF 2019
FORMERLY MARIMANTI ELC 48 OF 2017
FORMERLY CHUKA ELC 191 OF 2017
DALCO TRADING CENTRE.......................................................APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KAMAITA IMATHIU.......................................................1ST RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
LAWRENCE N. MUGAMBI...........................................2ND RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
MOHAMED HASHIN JAMAH.......................................3RD RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
LAND REGISTRAR, THARAKA NITHI COUNTY....4TH RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The advocate for the 3rd defendant and the advocate for the 4th defendant made oral applications to introduce new witness statements. This court had given orders regarding compliance with order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. It is clear that these 2 applications are being made very much out of the time granted to the parties to comply with order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Four witnesses for the plaintiff have already given evidence.
3. The Court of Appeal has in Telkom Kenya Limited versus John Ochanda (suing on his own behalf and on behalf of 996 Former Employees of Telkom Kenya Limited (eKLR) stated as follows:
“The respondents are seeking umbrage under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which provides that justice shall be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities. It does not avail them. We are content to state that the constitutional provision is not meant to whitewash every procedural failing and it is not meant to place procedural rules at naught. In fact, what has befallen the respondents is proof, if any were needed, that there is great utility in complying with the rules of procedure. Such compliance is neither anathema nor antithetical to the attainment of substantial justice. As has been said before, the rules serve as hand maidens of the Lady Justice.”
4. It thus unequivocally ruled that procedural rules are the hand maidens of justice. They cannot, therefore, be taken for granted and therefore be ignored Willy Nilly.
5. I have carefully considered this matter and I rule as follows:
a) The two oral applications to introduce 2 witness statements against the timelines given through a court order are hereby denied.
b) The supporting affidavit filed by advocate Wanyanga dated 27. 10. 2020 is hereby allowed to be deemed as the 3rd defendant’s witness statement.
c) It is so ordered.
Delivered in open Court at Chuka this 9th day of November, 2020 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Siagi for the plaintiff
Murango Mwenda for 1st and 2nd defendants
Wanyanga for the 3rd defendant
Kiongo for the 4th defendant
P. M. NJOROGE,
JUDGE.