[2013] KEHC 2119 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 2119 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had demonstrated sufficient effort to obtain the minutes of the Land Board meeting of 19/04/2011 but were unable to do so, and that the letter from Dr. Mary W. Kuria had been rejected by the lower court. The court held that the documents were relevant to the determination of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 2119 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Edward Njane Nganga; Appellant: Samuel Mwangi Nganga; Respondent: Damaris Wanjiku Kamau
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 8 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application to Adduce Additional Evidence
Outcome
application granted
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Adduction of Additional Evidence, Appeals Procedure, Land Board Minutes, Rejection of Evidence
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Adduction of Additional Evidence Appeals Procedure Land Board Minutes Rejection of Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Njane Nganga

Appellant

Samuel Mwangi Nganga

Appellant

Damaris Wanjiku Kamau

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application to Adduce Additional Evidence

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have satisfied the requirements for adducing additional evidence on appeal under Order 42 rule 27 (1) (b) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought to be produced are necessary for the determination of the appeal and could not be obtained with reasonable diligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had demonstrated sufficient effort to obtain the minutes of the Land Board meeting of 19/04/2011 but were unable to do so, and that the letter from Dr. Mary W. Kuria had been rejected by the lower court. The court held that the documents were relevant to the determination of the appeal and that the requirements of Order 42 rule 27 (1) (b) had been met. Since the application was not opposed and the evidence was necessary for the just resolution of the appeal, the court granted the application to adduce additional evidence.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • The application to adduce additional evidence is allowed in terms of prayer b.