[2023] KEHC 1373 (KLR)
The court found that granting the applicant an adjournment to file additional witness statements after both parties had closed their cases would be unjust and contrary to the overriding objective of the law, which seeks expeditious and fair disposal of disputes. The applicant had already been given an opportunity to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 1373 (KLR)
- Parties
- Objector: Charles Mbugua Muiruri; Petitioner: Zipporah Njoki Muiruri
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 88 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Adjournment to File Additional Witness Statements
- Outcome
- Application for adjournment to file additional witness statements dismissed.
- Judges
- RN Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment of Hearing, Filing of Witness Statements, Right to Fair Hearing, Overriding Objective, Expeditious Disposal
- 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
Charles Mbugua Muiruri
Objector
Zipporah Njoki Muiruri
Petitioner
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Adjournment to File Additional Witness Statements
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an adjournment to file additional witness statements after both parties had closed their cases.
- 2 Whether allowing the adjournment would infringe on the respondent's right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution.
- 3 Whether the applicant has established sufficient basis for the orders sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that granting the applicant an adjournment to file additional witness statements after both parties had closed their cases would be unjust and contrary to the overriding objective of the law, which seeks expeditious and fair disposal of disputes. The applicant had already been given an opportunity to present his case and failed to establish a sufficient basis for the orders sought. Allowing the application would amount to an ambush on the respondent and infringe on the right to a fair hearing. The court emphasized that while the right to be heard is fundamental, it must be exercised within the framework of rules designed to ensure fairness and finality in litigation....
Court Disposition
Application for adjournment to file additional witness statements dismissed.
Orders
- The applicant's prayer to file additional witness statements is denied.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
In re Estate of Samwel Muiruri Nganga - Deceased (Succession Cause 88 of 2013) [2023] KEHC 1373 (KLR) (1 March 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 1373 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Eldoret
Succession Cause 88 of 2013
RN Nyakundi, J
March 1, 2023
Between
Charles Mbugua Muiruri
Objector
and
Zipporah Njoki Muiruri
Petitioner
Ruling
1. The applicant herein sought an adjournment to file more witness statements. Keeping in mind that both parties had closed their cases, it is my view that the same would not be in the interest of justice as it will be tantamount to allowing the applicant to steal a march on the respondent. Further, it will be an infringement on the right to a fair hearing as provided by article 50(1) of theConstitution as it will be an ambush on the respondent who will be required to respond, and as a result this will then open up the closed cases of both parties once more.
2. The applicant was given an opportunity to be heard and he presented the witnesses and statements he opined would best suit his case. Considering the age of the matter, it is my considered view that allowing an adjournment, more so for the reasons sought would be unjust. The applicant has not laid a basis for the orders sought to issue and his conduct is a complete negation of the overriding objective of the law of attaining an expeditious, affordable, proportionate and just disposal of dispute.
3. In Chairman, Secretary & Treasurer suing as the officials/on behalf of House of Hope v Wotta – House Limited [2018] eKLRit was held;'Even after the pre-trial conference, the court has the power to allow the parties to call further witnesses or produce further documents. This power, encapsulated in the provisions of order 18 rule 10 of the Rules and section 146 of the Evidence Act, is intended to ensure that each party is afforded a fair trial guaranteed under article 50 (1) of theConstitution. But a fair trial does not exist in a vacuum, it is governed by rules which by themselves ensure that each party is given the opportunity to present or defend his case fairly. What these rules must not do is to become an end in themselves and impede a fair trial and that is why article 159(2)(b) of theConstitution provides that justice shall be administered without undue regard to technicalities. The constitutional imperatives are further supplemented by the overriding objective enacted in sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya).
4. Whereas the right to be heard is enshrined in theConstitution it is apposite that the same be implemented keeping in mind that litigation must come to an end. In the premises, upon considering the circumstances I find that I cannot allow the applicants prayer to file the witness statements at this juncture.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED ON THIS 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2023. ............................................R.NYAKUNDIJUDGE