[2021] KEELC 4640 (KLR)
The court found that although the defence witness statements were filed after the deadline set by the court, the closure of the court due to the Covid pandemic did not justify the delay. However, considering the long history of the case, the importance of both parties having the opportunity to present their...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 4640 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Francis Murithi Rutere (Suing as the administrator of the estate of M’Rutere M’Munyange alias Rutere Munyugi); Defendant: Julius Mutwiri Njuki (suing as the administrator of the estate of Njuki Munyugi); Defendant: Phineas Mutwiri
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 61 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property / Ruling on Objection to Admissibility of Defence Witness Statements
- Outcome
- Objection dismissed; defence witness statements admitted.
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Witness Statements, Natural Justice, Right to Be Heard
- 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
Francis Murithi Rutere (Suing as the administrator of the estate of M’Rutere M’Munyange alias Rutere Munyugi)
Plaintiff
Julius Mutwiri Njuki (suing as the administrator of the estate of Njuki Munyugi)
Defendant
Phineas Mutwiri
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property / Ruling on Objection to Admissibility of Defence Witness Statements
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defence witness statements filed on 15.1.2021 should be expunged for contravening earlier court orders.
- 2 Whether the late filing of witness statements prejudices the plaintiff or violates procedural fairness.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the defence witness statements were filed after the deadline set by the court, the closure of the court due to the Covid pandemic did not justify the delay. However, considering the long history of the case, the importance of both parties having the opportunity to present their evidence, and the fact that the statements were served before the hearing commenced, the court held that the right to be heard and the need to establish the whole truth outweighed strict adherence to procedural timelines. The objection to the admissibility of the statements was therefore not sustained.
Court Disposition
Objection dismissed; defence witness statements admitted.
Orders
- The objection to the defence witness statements is not sustained.
- Defence witness statements filed on 15.1.2021 are admitted into evidence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC CASE NO. 61 OF 2016
FRANCIS MURITHI RUTERE (Suing as the administrator of the
estate of M’RUTERE M’MUNYANGE
alias RUTERE MUNYUGI.........................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JULIUS MUTWIRI NJUKI (suing as the administrator of the
estate of NJUKI MUNYUGI............................................................1ST DEFENDANT
PHINEAS MUTWIRI......................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
1. Counsel for the plaintiff has urged the court to expunge the statements of Rael Ngugi and Phineas Mutwiri filed in the list of defendant’s witnesses on 15. 1.2021, as the same contravenes the orders given by the court on 26. 10. 2020.
2. Counsel for the defendants has however urged the court to allow the said statements averring that the court had even closed by the time they were supposed to comply with the orders of 26. 10. 2020.
3. I have considered all the arguments raised by advocates for the respective litigants. I find that the witness statements for the defence side were supposed to be filed by 26. 12. 2020. Indeed the court had closed due to Covid pandemic but this was in late November and the court was opened on 7. 12. 2020. The closure of the court cannot be the reason as to why the statements were filed on 15. 1.2021.
4. Notwithstanding, the foregoing, I have considered the chequered history of this case which has been in the court corridors for well over 10 years. The trial is now underway where plaintiff’s case has been closed. Having waited for all these years to tender their version for the truth, then it is only appropriate to give each side an opportunity to adduce their evidence in the best way possible. To this end the court takes into account that the right to be heard is a cardinal rule anchored on the principles of natural justice - “audi alteram partem”.
5. I have also taken into consideration that although the plaintiff’s case has been closed, the statements in question had been served upon the plaintiff’s side before the commencement of the hearing on 20. 1.2021.
6. In the case of Esther Wambui Njenga vs Harrison Mwangi Nyota and 2 others (2018) eKLR, Judge Munyaostated as follows:
“I would not, on my part encourage parties to file their documents other than is set down by the Civil Procedure Rules, but I think it is only fair to allow each party an opportunity to fully ventilate their case, if for no other reason, but so that the whole truth is revealed”.
7. The unfolding evidence is that the dispute is deeply rooted in the families of the litigants. It is pertinent that the whole truth be established and this may not be possible if some evidence is locked out.
8. In the circumstances, the objection is not sustained.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2021 IN PRESENCE OF:
C/A: Kananu
Mbaabu C. for plaintiff
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE-MERU