[2018] KEELC 1017 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had previously informed the court, during his testimony, that he did not have the original documents but would produce them later. The court had adjourned the matter specifically to allow for the production of these documents. The judge held that this constituted a sufficient basis...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 1017 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Hussein Noor Haji; Plaintiff: Rashid Maalim; Defendant: Abdi Tari Abkula
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 111 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Case / Ruling on Application to Reopen Plaintiff's Case for Production of Documents
- Outcome
- Application to reopen plaintiff's case for production of documents allowed, limited to documents previously marked for identification.
- Legal Topics
- Reopening Case, Production of Documents, Admissibility of Evidence
- 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 Noor Haji
Plaintiff
Rashid Maalim
Plaintiff
Abdi Tari Abkula
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Case / Ruling on Application to Reopen Plaintiff's Case for Production of Documents
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should be allowed to reopen his case for the purpose of producing original documents that were previously marked for identification.
- 2 Whether the documents sought to be produced are limited to those previously identified during the plaintiff's testimony.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had previously informed the court, during his testimony, that he did not have the original documents but would produce them later. The court had adjourned the matter specifically to allow for the production of these documents. The judge held that this constituted a sufficient basis for reopening the plaintiff's case for the limited purpose of producing the original documents that had already been marked for identification. The court restricted the admissible documents to those specifically listed and previously identified, thereby balancing the plaintiff's right to present his case with the need to prevent prejudice to the defendant and to maintain...
Court Disposition
Application to reopen plaintiff's case for production of documents allowed, limited to documents previously marked for identification.
Orders
- Plaintiff is allowed to reopen his case solely for the purpose of producing the original documents previously marked for identification as MFI 1 to MFI 8.
- Only the specified documents listed in the ruling may be produced as exhibits.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC CASE NO. 111/2013
HUSSEIN NOOR HAJI........................................................1ST PLAINTIFF
RASHID MAALIM..............................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ABDI TARI ABKULA..............................................................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. Plaintiff’s case was closed. Defence case is also almost complete. Plaintiff has however filed an application dated 24. 7.2018 where he is seeking for orders to reopen the case for purposes of production of documents.
2. The grounds in support of the application are that when plaintiff testified, he didn’t have his original documents as they were in Namanga where he resides. Defendant who had filed a notice to act in person on 9. 10. 2018 opposed the application averring that the documents are manufactured.
3. I have perused the record and I find that plaintiff testified way back on 13. 9.2016. During his testimony, he identified several documents which were in his original list and the latter list filed with the case summary. He had also informed the court that he didn’t carry the original documents but he would produce them later.
4. The court had proceeded to give directions as follows: Matter will be adjourned so that the documents marked for identification in the plaintiff’s evidence can be produced.
5. This is a clear indication that plaintiff had been allowed by the court to avail his documents at a later stage.
6. When I took over the case on 1. 5.2017, directions were taken for the case to proceed from where it had stopped hence other witnesses continued to tender their evidence.
7. I therefore find that applicant has laid a basis as to why he ought to be allowed to produce the original documents.
8. However, the documents which shall be produced are the ones which were marked for identification as follows:
(i) MFI 1; county council minutes dated 23. 9.1997 (item 2 in first list)
(ii) MFI 2; letter of allotment dated 4. 9.1998 (item 4 in first list)
(iii) MFI 3: Letter by Shadrack Mwithalii dated 17. 8.2016 (item 1 in 2nd list)
(iv) MF1 4: Letter by Arthur Mbatia dated 3…….. 2012 (item 2 in 2nd list).
(v) MF I 5: letter dated 29. 4.2013 by Daniel Kathuraku (in 2nd list)
(vi) MFI 6: PDP found in 1st list as item 3.
(vii) MFI 7: County council receipts (in first list)
(viii) MFI 8: Receipt from surveyor (first list)
9. It is further noted that the notice of intention to sue was produced as P. Exhibit I hence the other documents shall be produced as P. exhibit 2, 3, etc.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
Court Assistant: Janet/Galgalo
Mamu for plaintiff
Defendant
Plaintiff
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE