[2018] KEHC 2574 (KLR)
The court found that the documents sought to be introduced by the plaintiff pertain to the same period already under scrutiny in the proceedings and do not introduce any new issues. The main investigator is still under cross-examination, and both parties have already reconciled their financial analyses. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 2574 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission; Defendant: Jimmy Mutuku Kiamba; Defendant: Tracy Mbinya Musau; Defendant: Jimbise Limited; Defendant: Muthaiga Green Acres Ltd; Interested Party: Equity Bank Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Case 1 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Case / Interlocutory Application Ruling
- Outcome
- application granted
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Leave to File Additional Documents, Procedural Fairness
- 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
Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission
Plaintiff
Jimmy Mutuku Kiamba
Defendant
Tracy Mbinya Musau
Defendant
Jimbise Limited
Defendant
Muthaiga Green Acres Ltd
Defendant
Equity Bank Limited
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Case / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to file additional bank statements and original search warrants as further evidence.
- 2 Whether allowing the additional documents would prejudice the defendants or violate procedural fairness.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the documents sought to be introduced by the plaintiff pertain to the same period already under scrutiny in the proceedings and do not introduce any new issues. The main investigator is still under cross-examination, and both parties have already reconciled their financial analyses. The court emphasized that the overriding objective of procedural rules is to ensure a fair and just resolution of disputes. Since the documents were inadvertently omitted and their introduction would not prejudice the defendants, the court granted leave to the plaintiff to file a further affidavit for the production of the bank statements and search warrants. The defence was also granted...
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- Leave is granted to the plaintiff to file a further affidavit for purposes of producing the omitted bank statements and search warrants.
- The plaintiff shall file and serve the said documents by close of business on 11th October 2018.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
ANTI-CORRUPTION & ECONOMIC CRIMES CASE NO. 1 OF 2016
ETHICS AND ANTI CORRUPTION COMMISSION...................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JIMMY MUTUKU KIAMBA..................................................1ST DEFENDANT
TRACY MBINYA MUSAU.....................................................2ND DEFENDANT
JIMBISE LIMITED.................................................................3RD DEFENDANT
MUTHAIGA GREEN ACRES LTD.......................................4TH DEFENDANT
AND
EQUITY BANK LIMITED..............................................INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
The plaintiff through counsel has made an application to be allowed to provide the court with some bank statements in respect to the 1st defendant. That the said statements form part of the period in question but were inadvertedly omitted when the annextures were being bound. He has also requested to be allowed to provide the court with original copies of the warrants of search obtained in respect to the 2nd defendant’s bank accounts. The application has been vehemently opposed by the defendant’s counsel on the grounds that the case has already taken off. Mr Makokha submitted that the production of the said documents is to assist the plaintiff further its claim against the defendant. He further argued that the defendants had raised the issue of these bank statements in their further affidavit but no action was taken by the plaintiff. I have carefully considered the application by Mr Kagucia for the plaintiff and the response by Mr. Makokha for the defendants. The hearing herein took off on 4th October 2018, and the first witness who is the main investigator is still in the witness box under cross examination. The period which is the subject of this suit is very clear to all the parties herein. The bank statements and the warrants of search sought to be availed in court are in respect to the said period. Already there is a consensus on the reconciliation of the financial analysis done by both parties. The main objective of the Rules of procedure in these proceedings is to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of this dispute. What is being raised by Mr. Kagucia is not anything new in these proceedings and will not cause prejudice to any of the parties. It is in the interest of justice that the said documents be availed to the court to enable it fairly assess all the evidence. I therefore grant leave to PW1 to file another further affidavit for purposes of producing the bank statements and search warrants inadvertedly omitted as annextures herein. Since the said documents are in his possession he should file and serve them by close of business on 11th October 2018. The defence is granted corresponding leave to file and serve another supplementary affidavit in respect of the said annextures (only) by close of business on 16th October 2018. Parties may now take dates for the next hearing on a day to day basis.
Orders accordingly.
Delivered, signed and dated this 9th day of October 2018 in open court at Nairobi.
…………………
HEDWIG I. ONG’UDI
JUDGE