[1985] KECA 63 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that while it is standard practice to accept the trial judge's notes as the correct record, an exception is warranted in this case because the omissions are corroborated by contemporaneous notes taken by Mr Muttu during the trial. Furthermore, the possibility that these omissions could...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1985] KECA 63 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kairu; Respondent: Shaw & 3 Others
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 21 of 1985
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Insert Omissions Into Record of Appeal and to Adduce Additional Evidence
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Proceedings remitted to the High Court for hearing of additional evidence. Costs in the appeal.
- Judges
- AA Kneller, EN Juma
- Legal Topics
- Record of Appeal, Adducing Additional Evidence, Specific Performance, Sale of Land
- 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
Kairu
Applicant
Shaw & 3 Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Insert Omissions Into Record of Appeal and to Adduce Additional Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to insert omissions from the trial judge's notes into the record of appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant should be allowed to adduce additional evidence before the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that while it is standard practice to accept the trial judge's notes as the correct record, an exception is warranted in this case because the omissions are corroborated by contemporaneous notes taken by Mr Muttu during the trial. Furthermore, the possibility that these omissions could affect the outcome of the appeal justifies granting the application. The court determined that the appropriate course is to remit the proceedings to the High Court to allow the plaintiff to call additional evidence, preferably before the original trial judge, thereby ensuring both parties have a fair opportunity to address the new evidence. This approach balances the integrity of...
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Proceedings remitted to the High Court for hearing of additional evidence. Costs in the appeal.
Orders
- Leave granted to the plaintiff to call additional evidence before the High Court, preferably before the original trial judge.
- Proceedings remitted to the High Court for hearing of additional evidence as indicated and limited to the extent stated in the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
(Coram: Madan Ag CJ, Kneller & Nyarangi JJA)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 21 OF 1985
KAIRU ………………………………..…….APPLICANT
VERSUS
SHAW & 3 OTHERS……………….....…RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff in the High Court for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land at the alleged agreed purchase price of Kshs 7m. The record of appeal has been filed as supplied by the High Court.
At the trial in the High Court the plaintiff was represented by Mr Vadgama assisted by Mr Muttu. An application was filed in this court three days ago for leave to insert certain omissions into the record of appeal said to have been left out from the trial judge’s notes of the trial, but which appear in the notes taken by Mr Muttu as the trial proceeded. It is said that the omissions not appearing in the record are vital, and they may well affect the court’s decision on this appeal.
This is a novel application in our experience which when totalled runs into quite a long number of years. It is the practice, and a good practice it is, normally to accept the trial judge’s notes as correct. It would not do to allow the record of trial to be attacked by the defeated party every time a suit is lost. We would not like it to be taken that the court would be willing to embrace applications to that effect freely.
In this instance the situation has a feature which makes it exceptional. It is that the omissions are backed up by Mr Muttu’s notes of the evidence contemporaneously taken by him at the trial. When we add to it the submitted possibility of the omissions affecting the result of the appeal, we are of the view that this application ought to be allowed.
We are also of the view that an advisable manner of dealing with the situation is to give leave to the plaintiff to call additional evidence before the High Court, preferably before the learned judge who tried the suit. That way Mr Muttu and the plaintiff would both be able to testify further. And what is also important is that the defendants will have a full opportunity to battle the situation. We therefore order that the proceedings be remitted to the High Court for the hearing of additional evidence as indicated, and limited to the extent stated in the application. Costs in the appeal. So ordered.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 9th Day of December, 1985
C.B. MADAN
………………
AG CJ
A.A KNELLER
………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
J.O NYARANGI
…………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL