[2023] KEELC 766 (KLR)
The court held that while an administrator generally substitutes the deceased in litigation and may produce certain documents, caution must be exercised where the administrator lacks personal knowledge of the document's contents. In this case, the letter dated 12/9/2000 was addressed to the deceased and contained...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 766 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nancy Wacheke Indakwa; Plaintiff: Simon Mbote Kariuki; Defendant: Joseph Kipronoh Koech (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Sonoiya Arap Kositany – Deceased)
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 122 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Admissibility of Documentary Evidence
- Outcome
- Objection upheld; letter marked for identification only; hearing to proceed.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Production of Documents, Estate Administration, Documentary 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
Nancy Wacheke Indakwa
Plaintiff
Simon Mbote Kariuki
Plaintiff
Joseph Kipronoh Koech (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Sonoiya Arap Kositany – Deceased)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Admissibility of Documentary Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an administrator of a deceased estate can produce as evidence a letter addressed to the deceased where the administrator lacks personal knowledge of its contents.
- 2 Whether the letter dated 12/9/2000 should be admitted as evidence or only marked for identification.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that while an administrator generally substitutes the deceased in litigation and may produce certain documents, caution must be exercised where the administrator lacks personal knowledge of the document's contents. In this case, the letter dated 12/9/2000 was addressed to the deceased and contained information known only to the writer and the deceased. The administrator (DW1) did not demonstrate sufficient background or personal knowledge regarding the circumstances of the letter or its contents. Therefore, the court found that the administrator could not properly produce the letter as evidence. The objection to its production was upheld, and the letter was marked for...
Court Disposition
Objection upheld; letter marked for identification only; hearing to proceed.
Orders
- The original of the letter dated 12/9/2000 shall be marked for identification as 'DMFI-3'.
- Hearing to proceed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Indakwa & another v Koech (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Sonoiya Arap Kositany – Deceased) (Environment & Land Case 122 of 2013) [2023] KEELC 766 (KLR) (15 February 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 766 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Environment & Land Case 122 of 2013
FM Njoroge, J
February 15, 2023
Between
Nancy Wacheke Indakwa
1st Plaintiff
Simon Mbote Kariuki
2nd Plaintiff
and
Joseph Kipronoh Koech (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Sonoiya Arap Kositany – Deceased)
Defendant
Ruling
1. The letter dated 12/9/2000 was addressed to Sonoiya Ole Kositany the deceased, original defendant in this matter and the witness DW1, the administrator to the deceased’s Estate desires to produce the same as evidence in this case. Ms Njoroge for the plaintiff has pointed out that the witness does not know how to read and indeed the letter has been read out to him and translated into Swahili by the Court Assistant present. Ms Njoroge also avers that there are questions regarding the letter which she as the plaintiff’s counsel desires to ask of Mr Machage in regard to the said document.
2. It is the position held by Mr Waiganjo that the witness being an administrator to the Estate of the deceased can produce the letter in question as he is in the same position as the deceased could have been.
3. It is the correct position that an administrator replaces and substitutes a deceased litigant in all aspects regarding the conduct of a case and inherits all rights that would accrue to the deceased litigant in that suit and the liabilities too as the case may be.
4. However, this court must take caution when it comes to the production of evidence by an administrator as he may be a person who may not know much of what transpired between the deceased and the persons he interacted with in his lifetime. Consequently, though some documentary evidence may be admitted as a matter of course on the basis that the witness is a representative of the deceased’s estate, for example, documents of title or other documents evincing rights granted to a deceased in his lifetime, it is my opinion that the fact that a letter was addressed to the deceased per se does not make it capable of production by the administrator. In this case, the subject letter was addressed to the deceased and I think very little background has been given by DW1 to show that he was aware of the goings on at the time of the writing of that letter.
5. Besides, the letter is for most part informative to the deceased and it is quite doubtful that the witness DW1 can testify with any personal knowledge of the issues arising from the contents of that letter, eg the difficulties alleged to be experienced by the Advocate in releasing the title, the contents of the Register and the manner in which it conflicted with the particulars on the title and why, etc. These are matters solely within the knowledge of the writer of that letter and I do not think it would be of any aid to the court if the present witness was allowed to produce the letter dated 12/9/2000.
6. The upshot of the foregoing is that the objection by Ms Njoroge for the plaintiff is upheld. The original of the letter dated 12/9/2000 shall be marked for identification as “DMFI-3”.Hearing to proceed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 15TH DAY OFFEBRUARY, 2023. MWANGI NJOROGEJUDGE, ELC, NAKURU