[2018] KEELC 2444 (KLR)
The court held that, in line with the Court of Appeal's earlier ruling, parties should not be precluded from adducing secondary evidence in the form of copies of original documents. However, the parties must demonstrate the nature, number, and relevance of such documents. The opposing party retains the right to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2444 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Evangeline Nyegera (Suing as legal representative of Felix M’Ikiugu); Defendant: Godwin Gachagua Gichui
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 95 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Admission of Documents and Directions for Exchange
- Outcome
- Directions issued for filing and exchange of documentary evidence bundles within 14 days; parties to lay basis for relevance thereafter.
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Secondary Evidence, Documentary 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
Evangeline Nyegera (Suing as legal representative of Felix M’Ikiugu)
Plaintiff
Godwin Gachagua Gichui
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Admission of Documents and Directions for Exchange
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the parties should be allowed to adduce secondary evidence through copies of original documents.
- 2 What procedure should be followed for the exchange and admission of documentary evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, in line with the Court of Appeal's earlier ruling, parties should not be precluded from adducing secondary evidence in the form of copies of original documents. However, the parties must demonstrate the nature, number, and relevance of such documents. The opposing party retains the right to challenge the authenticity and legitimacy of the documents through cross-examination. The court therefore directed the parties to file and exchange a paginated bundle of documents they intend to rely on within 14 days, after which each party must lay a basis for the relevance of their documents.
Court Disposition
Directions issued for filing and exchange of documentary evidence bundles within 14 days; parties to lay basis for relevance thereafter.
Orders
- Parties to file and exchange a paginated bundle of documents they intend to rely on within 14 days from the date of this ruling.
- Each party to lay a basis on the relevance of the said documents after exchange.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MERU
ELC CASE NO. 95 OF 2010
EVANGELINE NYEGERA...................................PLAINTIFF
(Suing as legal representative of FELIX M’IKIUGU)
VERSUS
GODWIN GACHAGUA GICHUI.....................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. In the Court of Appeal case no. 28/2016, the court had allowed appellants application of 10. 4.2014, where they had sought for the admission of copies of their documents. The court of appeal had ruled as follows “we hold the view that the applicant should not be barred from adducing secondary evidence through copies of original documents. It is imperative that the nature of the documents, their number and relevance is shown .The other party will have an opportunity to cross examine on veracity and legitimacy if it is necessary.”
2. Pursuant to the aforementioned ruling, I direct that the parties file and exchange a paginated bundle of the documents they intend to rely on within 14 days from the date of delivery of this ruling. Thereafter, it is upon the parties to lay a basis on the relevance of the said documents.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2018 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
Court Assistant:Janet/Galgalo
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE