[2005] KEHC 537 (KLR)
The court held that under Section 35(1) of the Evidence Act, documents must be produced by their maker unless the maker is dead, cannot be found, is incapable of giving evidence, or cannot attend without unreasonable delay or expense. The plaintiff did not demonstrate that any of these exceptions applied, as the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 537 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joao Francis Quadros; Defendant: SDV Transami Kenya Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 27 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Admissibility of Documents During Trial
- Outcome
- Objection sustained; plaintiff barred from producing the documents; costs to the defendant.
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Documentary Evidence, Production of Documents
- 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
Joao Francis Quadros
Plaintiff
SDV Transami Kenya Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Admissibility of Documents During Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff, not being the maker, can produce documents in evidence.
- 2 Whether the exceptions under Section 35(1) of the Evidence Act apply to allow production by a non-maker.
- 3 Whether the defendant's objection to admissibility is valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that under Section 35(1) of the Evidence Act, documents must be produced by their maker unless the maker is dead, cannot be found, is incapable of giving evidence, or cannot attend without unreasonable delay or expense. The plaintiff did not demonstrate that any of these exceptions applied, as the maker of the documents was neither shown to be unavailable nor incapable of attending court. Therefore, the plaintiff was not competent to produce the documents, and the objection to their admissibility was sustained. The documents could only be produced by their maker, and costs were awarded to the defendant.
Court Disposition
Objection sustained; plaintiff barred from producing the documents; costs to the defendant.
Orders
- The plaintiff is not permitted to produce the documents in question.
- The documents shall only be produced by their maker.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA
Civil Suit 27 of 2003
JOAO FRANCIS QUADROS ……………………………….…………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SDV TRANSAMI KENYA LTD………………………………….………DEENDANT
R U L I N G
While being led in examination in chief the plaintiff sought to produce certain documents copies of which he has filed along with his list of documents and served counsel for the defendants. Mr. Mogaka, counsel for the defendant, objected to the production of those documents on the ground that the Plaintiff is not the maker. By dint of Section 35 of the Evidence Act he is not a competent witness to produce them. Mr. Mogaka further argued that the maker is not dead and it has not been alleged that he cannot be traced or that the cost of bringing him to court is exorbitant. He argued that the defendants’ other and main objection to the production of the documents by the Plaintiff is because they are fabricated. That is why the author should produce them and be cross-examined on them.
Mr. Mogaka further argued that the notice to produce, served upon him only that morning, requires the defendant to produce the original documents which are in the possession of the Plaintiff. There is therefore no way the defendant can be able to comply with that. It should therefore be ignored as being of no consequence, he concluded.
In response Dr. Khaminwa for the Plaintiff submitted that the objection is baseless and should be overruled. The argument that the documents are not with the defendant is no basis for objecting to their admissibility. He said Mr. Mogaka has had copies of the documents for over a year and has therefore had ample opportunity and should have objected earlier. Having not done so it is now too late in the day and the objection should be overruled. He said the documents are not secondary but primary evidence. To bar the plaintiff from producing them will shut out vital evidence. Dr. Khaminwa concluded that the plaintiff should be allowed to produce the documents and Mr. Mogaka can cross-examine him as long as he wants to show, if he can, that the documents are not authentic.
The plaintiff seeks to produce documents in support of his claim for commission. It is common ground that he is not the maker of those documents. He said the documents were made by one Murumba a former employee of the defendant. The authenticity of the documents is highly questioned by the defendant.
Section 35(1) of the Evidence Act Cap 80 of the Laws of Kenya is quite clear. Documents have to be produced by the maker except where the maker is:-
“…dead, or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or if his attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which in the circumstances of the case appears to the court unreasonable.”
The Plaintiff has not come under any of these exceptions. He has not given any reason why the maker of those documents cannot be called. In the circumstances I find no basis for allowing the plaintiff to produce them. The documents shall be produced by the maker. I therefore sustain the objection with costs to the defendant.
DATED and delivered this 2nd day of December, 2005
D. K. MARAGA
JUDGE