[2018] KEELC 3842 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had not laid a sufficient basis for introducing a supplementary list of documents at this advanced stage of the proceedings. The matter had been pending since 2012, pre-trial had been conducted, and three plaintiff witnesses had already testified and been cross-examined. Allowing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3842 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Japhet Kirimi; Plaintiff: Peter Kinoti; Plaintiff: Martha Nkatha; Plaintiff: Gladys Karegi Muguna; Defendant: Rosemary Karoki Rutere; Defendant: Peter Rutere
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 110 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Interlocutory Application Ruling
- Outcome
- Application to introduce supplementary list of documents declined.
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Supplementary Documents, 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
Japhet Kirimi
Plaintiff
Peter Kinoti
Plaintiff
Martha Nkatha
Plaintiff
Gladys Karegi Muguna
Plaintiff
Rosemary Karoki Rutere
Defendant
Peter Rutere
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be allowed to introduce a supplementary list of documents (8 receipts) during the trial after pre-trial has been conducted.
- 2 Whether the introduction of new documents at this stage would occasion prejudice to the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs had not laid a sufficient basis for introducing a supplementary list of documents at this advanced stage of the proceedings. The matter had been pending since 2012, pre-trial had been conducted, and three plaintiff witnesses had already testified and been cross-examined. Allowing the introduction of new documents mid-trial, without a proper explanation for their late discovery or production, would be unfair and potentially prejudicial to the defendants. The court emphasized the need for fairness and adherence to established trial procedures, holding that it is not enough for the plaintiffs to merely assert that no prejudice would be occasioned....
Court Disposition
Application to introduce supplementary list of documents declined.
Orders
- The application to introduce a supplementary list of 8 receipts is declined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MERU
ELC CASE NO 110 OF 2012
JAPHET KIRIMI.....................................1ST PLAINTIFF
PETER KINOTI......................................2ND PLAINTIFF
MARTHA NKATHA..............................3RD PLAINTIFF
GLADYS KAREGI MUGUNA..............4TH PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ROSEMARY KAROKI RUTERE......1ST DEFENDANT
PETER RUTERE................................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
1. On 27. 2.2018 the plaintiff witness no. 4, one Gladys Karegi was midstream of her testimony when plaintiff’s counsel made an application for the witness to be stood down for plaintiff to be allowed to file a supplementary list of 8 receipts. This application was objected upon by defence counsel who averred that this is a 2012 matter, that pre-trial had been conducted and they (defence) stand to be prejudiced if documents are introduced at this stage.
2. Article 50 of the constitution provides that;
“Every person has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair and public hearing before a court or, if appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or body”.
3. The question to ask is “what is fair, what is just? This is a case of 2012. For the last five plus years where were these documents that plaintiff wants to introduce in the middle of the trial. This is a case whereby already 3 witnesses of the plaintiff have testified and they have been cross examined. Pre-trial had also been conducted and the matter was certified as ready for trial.
4. In such circumstances, counsel for plaintiff ought to have laid basis for the application to introduce documents at this stage. It is not enough to state that no prejudice will be occasioned to the other side.
5. The application to introduce a supplementary list is hereby declined.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS DAY OF 11th APRIL, 2018 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
Court Assistant:Janet/Galgalo
Kithinji holding brief for Mokua plaintiffs – present
Miss Mutinda for defendant - absent
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE