[2018] KEHC 5569 (KLR)
The court found that although the plaintiff failed to comply with the procedural requirements for filing documents, the documents in question were quoted extensively in the plaint and their admission would not prejudice the defendants, who had not yet called their witnesses. The court exercised its discretion to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 5569 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Hezekiel Oira; Defendant: Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission; Defendant: Office of Director of Public Prosecutions
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 285 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Admissibility of Supplementary Documents After Plaintiff's Evidence
- Outcome
- Application to admit supplementary documents allowed.
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Supplementary Documents, Pre Trial Procedure
- 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
Hezekiel Oira
Plaintiff
Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission
Defendant
Office of Director of Public Prosecutions
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Admissibility of Supplementary Documents After Plaintiff's Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff can introduce supplementary documents after close of his evidence without leave of court.
- 2 Whether the late introduction of documents prejudices the defendants.
- 3 Whether the court should exercise discretion to admit the documents despite procedural irregularity.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the plaintiff failed to comply with the procedural requirements for filing documents, the documents in question were quoted extensively in the plaint and their admission would not prejudice the defendants, who had not yet called their witnesses. The court exercised its discretion to admit the documents, emphasizing the importance of compliance with procedural rules but prioritizing substantive justice and the absence of demonstrated prejudice to the defendants.
Court Disposition
Application to admit supplementary documents allowed.
Orders
- The plaintiff's supplementary documents are admitted into evidence.
- It is upon the plaintiff's counsel to address the relevance of the documents, given the plaintiff has already testified.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 285 OF 2013
HEZEKIEL OIRA..............................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ETHICS AND ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION.......1ST DEFENDANT
OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS..2ND DEFEDANT
RULING
This case is part heard. The plaintiff has already completed his evidence both in chief and under cross examination. When this case resumed on 30th May, 2018, it transpired that the plaintiff had lodged a supplementary list of documents made of copies of three newspaper cuttings and objection was raised by the defendants.
The court then allowed rival submissions on the objection. It is the defendants’ position that the plaintiffs by introducing these documents intends to cover or fill the gaps that emerged during cross-examination. This is prejudicial to the defendants.
On the other hand the plaintiff justifies the introduction of these documents on the grounds that their exclusion was inadvertent and in any case, the plaint contains extracts of the documents sought to be introduced and that, no prejudice will be occasioned to the defendants if these documents were to be admitted.
The list of the plaintiff’s documents which were first filed with the plaint on 20th July, 2013 refers to newspaper cuttings at item no. 6. The documents sought to be produced at this stage were not among those cuttings. Order 3 Rule 2 requires that all suits filed shall be accompanied by, among other things, copies of documents to be relied on at the trial. The plaintiff was clearly in breach of that provision for failing to include the documents now sought to be introduced.
Further, Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides for pre-trial directions and conference. At that stage, the court is mandated to ensure that the parties have complied with Order 3 Rule 2 and Order 7 Rule 5 that require the plaintiff and the defendants respectively to comply therewith. The plaintiff did not raise these issues at that stage.
Once that pre-trial conference is conducted no other documents may be filed except with the leave of the court. In this case the plaintiff did not seek that leave and the said documents are irregularly on the record. That notwithstanding, I have related those documents to the plaint and noted that they were quoted extensively therein. In that case, any prejudice may not have been visited upon the defendants. In any case, the defendants are yet to call their witnesses who may offer a rejoinder to any evidence presented by the plaintiff and his witnesses.
The court must however deprecate the conduct of parties who do not comply with the Civil Procedure Rules, which are intended to aid the proper adjudication of disputes. I have the discretion to admit those documents which I hereby do. It remains upon the plaintiff’s counsel to see how the relevance of those documents may be factored in the plaintiff’s case, considering that the plaintiff has already testified.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 18th Day of June, 2018.
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE