[2023] KEHC 17986 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 17986 (KLR)

The court held that the evidence already on record, including witness testimonies and documentary evidence, was sufficient for determination of the issues in dispute. A site visit, even with a neutral geologist, would not materially assist the court, as the court would not be able to discern the rock formations...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 17986 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: JTG Enterprises Limited; Defendant: China Gezhouba Group Company Limited; Defendant: Principal Secretary Ministry of Water, Sanitation and Irrigation; Defendant: Smec International Pty; Defendant: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case E649 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Site Visit After Close of Defence Case
Outcome
application for site visit declined; directions for filing submissions issued
Judges
A Mabeya
Legal Topics
Site Visit Application, Admissibility of Evidence, Judicial Fact Finding
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Site Visit Application Admissibility of Evidence Judicial Fact Finding

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JTG Enterprises Limited

Plaintiff

China Gezhouba Group Company Limited

Defendant

Principal Secretary Ministry of Water, Sanitation and Irrigation

Defendant

Smec International Pty

Defendant

Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Site Visit After Close of Defence Case

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an application for a site visit with a neutral geologist after close of defence case.
  2. 2 Whether a site visit would amount to improper judicial investigation of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the evidence already on record, including witness testimonies and documentary evidence, was sufficient for determination of the issues in dispute. A site visit, even with a neutral geologist, would not materially assist the court, as the court would not be able to discern the rock formations itself and such a visit would risk the court engaging in its own fact-finding, which is improper. The court emphasized that it is not its role to investigate evidence beyond what has been presented by the parties. Accordingly, the application for a site visit was declined, and the matter was directed to proceed to submissions based on the existing record.

Court Disposition

application for site visit declined; directions for filing submissions issued

Orders

  • The application for a site visit is declined.
  • The plaintiff to file and serve submissions within 14 days.