[2022] KEELC 14633 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any documentary evidence to support the claims of advanced age and ill health of the witness, such as an ID card or medical records. Mere statements in affidavits were deemed insufficient. The court distinguished the present case from cited authority where such...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELC 14633 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: James Mwangi Gacheru; Defendant: Charles Njogu Mburu; Defendant: Musan Enterprises Limited; Defendant: Chief Land Registrar
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kwale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 72 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
- Judges
- AE Dena
- Legal Topics
- De Bene Esse Evidence, Virtual Hearings, Witness Availability, Interlocutory Applications
- 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
James Mwangi Gacheru
Plaintiff
Charles Njogu Mburu
Defendant
Musan Enterprises Limited
Defendant
Chief Land Registrar
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should allow the evidence of Engineer Erastus Ngunya to be taken de bene esse due to alleged old age and ill health.
- 2 Whether sufficient evidence has been provided to justify taking the witness's evidence immediately.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any documentary evidence to support the claims of advanced age and ill health of the witness, such as an ID card or medical records. Mere statements in affidavits were deemed insufficient. The court distinguished the present case from cited authority where such evidence was provided. However, the court noted that a virtual hearing had previously been proposed and found this to be a suitable alternative to accommodate the witness's alleged condition. The application to take evidence de bene esse was therefore declined, but the court directed that the suit be heard on a priority basis and that the plaintiff bear the costs of the application.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Orders
- The application to take the evidence of Engineer Erastus Ngunya de bene esse is declined.
- The suit shall be heard on a priority basis on a day to day basis.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Gacheru v Mburu & 2 others (Land Case 72 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 14633 (KLR) (4 November 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEELC 14633 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kwale
Land Case 72 of 2021
AE Dena, J
November 4, 2022
Between
James Mwangi Gacheru
Plaintiff
and
Charles Njogu Mburu
1st Defendant
Musan Enterprises Limited
2nd Defendant
Chief Land Registrar
3rd Defendant
Ruling
1. The application the subject of this ruling is dated 14/9/2022 seeking to have the evidence of one Engineer Erastus Ngunya taken debene esse. The application is premised upon the provisions of order 18 rule 9 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides that where a witness is about to leave the jurisdiction of the court or other sufficient cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court why his evidence should be taken immediately, the court may, upon application of any party or the witness at any time after the institution of the suit take the evidence of such witness immediately.
2. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn on 14/9/2022 by James Mwangi Gacheru the plaintiff. He avers that for the interest of justice it has become necessary for the court to immediately take the evidence of his witness Engineer Erastus. That the said witness is of advanced age about 90 years and in very poor health and which continues to decline by the day. According to him the evidence is crucial in buttressing his case and that no prejudice will be occasioned if the evidence is taken as prayed.
3. The application is opposed by the replying affidavit of the 1st defendant Charles Njogu Mburu sworn on 27/9/22. He avers that the applicant has approached the court with unclean hands. It is contended that the said witness has been described as a person of sound mind and working for gain at the time of instituting the suit. That old age has never been a life-threatening issue to seek preferential treatment. The applicant is not leaving the jurisdiction of the court. It is further stated no evidence has been placed before court to demonstrate ill health or the advanced age but mere statements. The application is further opposed by the replying affidavit sworn by John Erick Musyoka-Annan a director of the 2nd defendant who has reiterated the lack of sufficient evidence or cause to warrant the orders sought.
4. The applicants filed submissions dated October 11, 2022 and several authorities which I have considered.
5. The issues raised in the application are straight forward. The applicant is apprehensive his witness may be unable to testify at the hearing of the suit due to ill heath and old age. It is however noteworthy that no single piece of evidence to demonstrate the age of the witness and his medical condition has been presented before this court in support of the averments as to old age and ill health. Counsel for the applicant referred this court to the decision in Jackton Siundu Mukhwana vs Protus Sawenja & another(2022) eKLR by my learned brother Nyagaka J. I noted that the court in that case had the benefit of the witnesses’ ID card as well as medical evidence. In the instant case these have not been availed. I decline on this basis to allow the application.
6. Be that as it may upon perusal of the court record in respect of this matter I noted a letter dated 23/5/2022 wherein counsel for the plaintiff requested the Deputy Registrar of this court to facilitate for the taking of EngErastus Ngunya’s testimony through a video link on 26/5/2022. The letter states that the witness is aged, sickly and could not travel to Kwale. This has also been raised by the 2nd defendant who states that there is no evidence that the said witness had aged dramatically since then.
7. In view of the option for a virtual hearing that has been proposed by the plaintiffs the court chooses this mode as a preferable option. In view of the age of this dispute and to ensure access to justice it is hereby directed that this suit shall be heard on priority basis on a day to day basis.
8. Since the application has not succeeded the plaintiff shall bear the costs of this application.It is so ordered.
DELIVERED AND DATED AT KWALE THIS 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022. A.E. DENAJUDGERuling delivered virtually through Microsoft teams Video Conferencing Platform in the presence of:Mr. Wamuti Ndegwa the Plaintiff /ApplicantsMr. Magiya for the 1stDefendant/RespondentMr. Kiti 2nd Defendant/RespondentMr. Denis Mwakina- Court Assistant.