[2019] KEHC 4069 (KLR)
The court found that although the new evidence (an official land search) did not on its face clarify how the property changed hands, the applicant should be given an opportunity to explain its relevance. The court acknowledged the respondent's concerns about delay but held that the right to a fair trial and to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 4069 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Eustace Mutegi Murungi; Respondent: Agrivine Kaburu Njoka
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause 52 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Re Open Case for Adducing Additional Evidence
- Outcome
- application allowed with directions
- Judges
- BB Limo
- Legal Topics
- Succession Proceedings, Revocation of Grant, Adducing Additional Evidence, Probate and Administration, Fair Trial Rights
- 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
Eustace Mutegi Murungi
Applicant
Agrivine Kaburu Njoka
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Re Open Case for Adducing Additional Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should re-open the respondent's case to allow her to adduce additional evidence discovered after the close of her case.
- 2 Whether allowing the application would prejudice the expeditious disposal of the matter or cause undue delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the new evidence (an official land search) did not on its face clarify how the property changed hands, the applicant should be given an opportunity to explain its relevance. The court acknowledged the respondent's concerns about delay but held that the right to a fair trial and to adduce relevant evidence outweighed the risk of delay. The court exercised its discretion to allow the application, subject to strict timelines for filing supplementary affidavits by both parties, to balance the interests of justice and expeditious disposal of the matter.
Court Disposition
application allowed with directions
Orders
- The application dated 19th August 2019 is allowed.
- The applicant is granted 14 days to adduce the new evidence by supplementary affidavit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT CHUKA
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE MURUNGI RUTERE (DECEASED)
MISC. SUCCESSION NO 52 OF 2018
EUSTACE MUTEGI MURUNGI......................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
AGRIVINE KABURU NJOKA......................................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. AGRIVINE KABURU NJOKA has vide summons dated 19th August 2019 moved this court for the following orders namely:-
i. That this court be pleased to re-open her case and recall her for purposes of adducing additional evidence.
ii. Costs
2. The grounds upon which this application has been brought are listed as follows:-
a) That the applicant's case in Summons for Revocation of Grant dated 13th December 2018, where she was the Respondent was heard and closed.
b) That parties were then directed to file their respective submissions and that the parties have filed their submissions.
c) That the Applicant during trial referred to a parcel of land belonging to Respondent's father- Muthaa Nkuene .
d) The Applicant stated that the Respondent and siblings were born and raised on that land.
e) That at the time of trial, the Applicant did not know the specific land reference number.
f) That a search was later conducted and she got the details of the parcel of land.
g) That it has now become necessary to re-open her case in order to provide an opportunity for her to tender the new evidence.
3. This application is supported by the Applicant's Counsel's affidavit sworn on 19th August 2019 where she has reiterated the above grounds. Winnie Matiri, the Applicant's counsel has deposed that she conducted a search at the Land's office and discovered that the land in question that was referred by the Applicant in her testimony belonged to Respondent's father and that he had it registered in the name of one of his sons Bedford Ndeke M'Thaa. A copy of the search has been exhibited to support the Applicant's claims.
4. Applicant feels that she should be given a chance to present the said evidence to enable this court make an informed determination of all the issues in the Summons for Revocation of Grant dated 13th December, 2018.
5. The Respondent through learned Counsel Mr. Njeru Ithiga has opposed the application basically on grounds that the application or the relief sought would not aid the applicant in anyway and that it will only delay the determination of this cause. He contends that the Applicant ought to have sought for and tender a search of the Registrar (commonly referred to as the Green Card) as that would in his view help the court to know how the property changed hands.
6. The Respondent asserts that this court ought to dispense justice expeditiously and that allowing this application will impede expeditious disposal of this matter and prejudice the Respondent.
7. I have considered this application and the response made. It is true that under Rule 73 of Probate and Administration Rules and Section 47 ofLaw of Succession Act, this court is empowered to make such orders that are expedient and those that meet the ends of justice.
8. The Applicant states that she has discovered an important piece of evidence whose specifics were not within her knowledge and reach at the time of trial. I have looked at the official search conducted on 10th July 2019 and dated the same day and though the same on the face of it has no bearing on how and where the subject matter landed into the hands of Bedford Ndege M'Thaa perhaps the applicant has an explanation that may aid her case. The Respondent is right to feel that a delay will be occasioned by re-opening the Applicant's cause and could even have the potential to render the filed submissions unuseful due to potential change of positions taken by the parties herein. However this is a court of law and parties have a right to access justice and a fair trial which includes adducing whatever evidence they opine relevant and useful to their respective cases.
It is on that basis that I am inclined to allow this application but I will give limited period or time in which the Applicant should adduce the evidence. I will also exercise my discretion and allow the Respondent file a further affidavit of evidence to rebut or challenge the new evidence to be tendered. In the premises the application dated 19th August 2019 is allowed but costs shall follow the event. As I have observed above, I will grant the Applicant 14 days to adduce the evidence through Supplementary Affidavit to respond if need arises. and 14 days to the Respondent. Thereafter this court shall give further directions on the submissions filed. In the meantime I direct the parties to take a mention date forthwith for the interest of time and justice.
Dated, signed and delivered at Chuka this 30th day of September 2019.
R.K. LIMO
JUDGE
30/9/2019
Ruling signed, dated and delivered in the open court in presence of Kijaru holding brief for Ithiga for Applicant and Respondent in person.
R.K. LIMO
JUDGE
30/9/2019