[2023] KEHC 21885 (KLR)
The court held that DW 1, Mr. Matemo, was not competent to produce the document because he does not work with the EACC and would not be able to answer questions regarding the document. Therefore, the objection to the production of the document was sustained. The court clarified that the defendants are at liberty to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 21885 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Michael Mubea Kamau; Defendant: Kipkoech Tanui; Defendant: The Standard Group Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 447 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Objection to Production of Document
- Outcome
- Objection sustained; document not admitted through DW 1.
- Judges
- AN Ongeri
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Documentary Evidence, Witness Competence
- 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
Michael Mubea Kamau
Plaintiff
Kipkoech Tanui
Defendant
The Standard Group Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Objection to Production of Document
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether DW 1, Mr. Matemo, is competent to produce the document in question under Sections 34 and 37 of the Evidence Act.
- 2 Whether the document can be admitted into evidence without calling its custodian.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that DW 1, Mr. Matemo, was not competent to produce the document because he does not work with the EACC and would not be able to answer questions regarding the document. Therefore, the objection to the production of the document was sustained. The court clarified that the defendants are at liberty to call the custodian of the document to produce it, ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Evidence Act regarding admissibility of documentary evidence.
Court Disposition
Objection sustained; document not admitted through DW 1.
Orders
- Objection to production of document by DW 1 is sustained.
- Defendants are at liberty to call the custodian of the document to produce it.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Kamau v Tanui & another (Civil Case 447 of 2015) [2023] KEHC 21885 (KLR) (Civ) (14 August 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 21885 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Civil
Civil Case 447 of 2015
AN Ongeri, J
August 14, 2023
Between
Michael Mubea Kamau
Plaintiff
and
Kipkoech Tanui
1st Defendant
The Standard Group Limited
2nd Defendant
Ruling
1. The ruling pending determination is an objection to production of a document by DW 1, Mr. Matemo on the basis that Section 34 and 37 of the Evidence Act is not applicable.
2. The objection is sustained on the ground that DW 1 does not work with EACC and he will not be able to answer questions on the said document.
3. The defendants are at liberty to call the custodian of the said document to produce it.
4. The hearing of this case will proceed on 19/10/2023 as scheduled.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ONLINE VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT NAIROBI THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023. ......................................A. N. ONGERIJUDGE