[2011] KEHC 3491 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 3491 (KLR)

The court held that the Parliamentary Select Committee proceedings, as chaired by the Defendant, qualify as judicial proceedings under Section 34 of the Evidence Act because evidence was taken under oath by a person authorized by law. Therefore, the certified Hansard records are admissible, but only in respect of the Plaintiff's own statements or evidence. Adverse remarks against the Plaintiff, for which he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine, are not admissible. Correspondence between the Defendant and parliamentary officials, as well as complaints from other parties, are relevant and admissible as they help explain or introduce facts in issue or rebut inferences, pursuant to...

Citation
[2011] KEHC 3491 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: George Odinga Oraro; Defendant: Eric Gor Sungu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
9 March 2011
Case Number
Civil Case 1250 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Admissibility of Documents During Trial
Outcome
Objections to certain documents upheld in part; other documents admitted as relevant evidence.
Judges
KH Rawal
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Defamation, Parliamentary Privilege, Relevance of Documents
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Tort Law Admissibility of Evidence Defamation Parliamentary Privilege Relevance of Documents

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Odinga Oraro

Plaintiff

Eric Gor Sungu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Admissibility of Documents During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the documents produced by the Defendant, including Parliamentary Select Committee records and correspondence, are admissible in evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings of the Parliamentary Select Committee constitute judicial proceedings under Section 34 of the Evidence Act.
  3. 3 Whether adverse remarks made against the Plaintiff in the Committee proceedings are admissible.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Parliamentary Select Committee proceedings, as chaired by the Defendant, qualify as judicial proceedings under Section 34 of the Evidence Act because evidence was taken under oath by a person authorized by law. Therefore, the certified Hansard records are admissible, but only in respect of the Plaintiff's own statements or evidence. Adverse remarks against the Plaintiff, for which he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine, are not admissible. Correspondence between the Defendant and parliamentary officials, as well as complaints from other parties, are relevant and admissible as they help explain or introduce facts in issue or rebut inferences, pursuant to...

Court Disposition

Objections to certain documents upheld in part; other documents admitted as relevant evidence.

Orders

  • The letter dated 4th March, 2004 by James Onyango Koyoo is expunged from the record and not to be included in the case file.
  • Annexures to the Plaintiff's affidavit (pages 43-50) sworn on 8th November, 2004, and the affidavit itself, are allowed in evidence.