[2023] KEELC 20931 (KLR)
The court held that objections to the production of documents must be raised during the pretrial stage as stipulated by the Practice Directions and relevant case law. Since the defendant failed to object at the pretrial conference, he is estopped from raising such objections during the main hearing. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 20931 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Hussein Ahmed Farah; Plaintiff: Hussein Unshur Mohammed; Defendant: Yusuf Abdi Adan; Defendant: Mohammed Abdikadir Adan
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E229 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Objection During Trial
- Outcome
- Objection to production of documents during main hearing dismissed.
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Pretrial Directions, Production of Documents
- 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
Hussein Ahmed Farah
Plaintiff
Hussein Unshur Mohammed
Plaintiff
Yusuf Abdi Adan
Defendant
Mohammed Abdikadir Adan
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Objection During Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether objections to the production of documents can be raised during the main hearing if not raised at the pretrial stage.
- 2 Whether the failure to object to documentary evidence at pretrial precludes such objections at trial.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that objections to the production of documents must be raised during the pretrial stage as stipulated by the Practice Directions and relevant case law. Since the defendant failed to object at the pretrial conference, he is estopped from raising such objections during the main hearing. The court emphasized that pretrial directions are a vital stage in proceedings and are designed to ensure justice, fairness, and expediency. Entertaining objections at the main hearing would undermine the purpose of pretrial procedures and the efficient administration of justice.
Court Disposition
Objection to production of documents during main hearing dismissed.
Orders
- The court declines to entertain any applications relating to production of documents during the main hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Farah & another v Adan & another (Environment & Land Case E229 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 20931 (KLR) (23 October 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 20931 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Case E229 of 2022
LN Mbugua, J
October 23, 2023
Between
Hussein Ahmed Farah
1st Plaintiff
Hussein Unshur Mohammed
2nd Plaintiff
and
Yusuf Abdi Adan
1st Defendant
Mohammed Abdikadir Adan
2nd Defendant
Ruling
1. For the 2nd time, this court is delivering an instant ruling midstream of the trial. The same is in respect of objection raised by Mr. Lorot regarding the production of some documents by the PW1, particularly item no 6 which is apparently electronic evidence, as well as item no. 7, the copy of indenture. He avers that this is secondary evidence and there was no notice to produce.
2. In opposition to the application, Mr. Sagana for the plaintiff avers that the title which is being contested is the same one that the 1st defendant has in case no.156 of 2021. Adding that this again is a pretrial issue, and is now late for the opponent to start raising objections. He avers that the objection makes a mockery of pretrial directions.
3. I have considered the arguments raised herein. I will again make reference to the Practice Directions of 25. 7.2014 gazette notice no. 5178 which states that pretrial directions should be taken seriously as this is a vital stage of the proceedings. The provisions of section 28 (g) thereof stipulate that one of the directions to be undertaken during pretrial exercise is;“g)Taking of all objections to the production of specific documents, where notice has been issued to the other party, thereafter, objections on the production of any document shall not be entertained at the main hearing.”
4. In the case of Virginia Kathambi, Maingi v Nicholas Mwatika & 2 others [2023] eKLR the court had this to say in a similar situation;“The 1st defendant’s counsel having failed to raise her objections on the production of the Plaintiff’s exhibits numbers 15,16,17,18, during the pretrial conference is estopped from raising the objections at the hearing of this suit. Her argument that disallowing her objections will amount to sacrificing justice at the alter of expediency does not arise; because the provisions of the Constitution, the Environment and Land Court Act, the Civil Procedure Act and the rules thereunder together with this court’s Practice Directions have inbuilt mechanisms to ensure justice, fairness, expediency, affordability and proportionality are achieved all in one package.”
5. Similarly, this is not a situation where the 1st defendant is being denied an opportunity to raise objections on production of documents, rather, it is a situation where he failed to seize the moment during the vital stage fop Pretrial Directions. The court declines to entertain any applications relating to production of documents during the main hearing.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 23RDDAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:-Sagana and Birif for PlaintiffMr. Lorot and Tirop for 1st DefendantMuriithi for 2nd DefendantCourt Assistant: Eddel