[2019] KEELC 4620 (KLR)
The court found that while the plaintiff herself had gone beyond her own witness statement during her evidence in chief, the purpose of witness statements is to outline, not limit, the evidence to be presented. The court emphasized that the rules on witness statements are designed to expedite proceedings and should...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 4620 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lucy Wangari Njogu; Defendant: Peter Leonard Mwangi; Defendant: Consolidated Bank of Kenya Ltd; Defendant: Cyrus Citari Kathuri; Defendant: Equity Bank Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 358 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Objection to Evidence
- Outcome
- objection dismissed
- Judges
- LC Komingoi
- Legal Topics
- Witness Statements, Admissibility of Evidence, Cross Examination, Expeditious Trial
- 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
Lucy Wangari Njogu
Plaintiff
Peter Leonard Mwangi
Defendant
Consolidated Bank of Kenya Ltd
Defendant
Cyrus Citari Kathuri
Defendant
Equity Bank Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Objection to Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st defendant has gone outside the scope of his witness statement in giving evidence in chief.
- 2 Whether the evidence by the 1st defendant should be excluded for allegedly going beyond the witness statement.
- 3 Whether admitting the evidence would prejudice the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the plaintiff herself had gone beyond her own witness statement during her evidence in chief, the purpose of witness statements is to outline, not limit, the evidence to be presented. The court emphasized that the rules on witness statements are designed to expedite proceedings and should not be used to enforce technicalities that hinder substantive justice. Since the plaintiff would have the opportunity to cross-examine the 1st defendant on any evidence given, no prejudice would be occasioned. Therefore, the objection to the 1st defendant's evidence was unmerited and dismissed.
Court Disposition
objection dismissed
Orders
- The objection to the 1st defendant's evidence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI
ELC CIVIL CASE NO. 358 OF 2010
LUCY WANGARI NJOGU...............................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
=VERSUS=
PETER LEONARD MWANGI...........................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
CONSOLIDATED BANK OF KENYA LTD....2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
CYRUS CITARI KATHURI...............................3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
EQUITY BANK LIMITED................................4TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
DIRECTIONS AND/OR RULING
1. Mr. P. J. Machira for the plaintiff objects to the evidence by the 1st defendant on the ground that he has gone out of his witness statement and will cause a lot of his witness statement and will cause a lot of prejudice to the plaintiff. Mr. Waweru for the 1st defendant maintains that the 1st defendant has not gone out of his witness statement.
2. I have considered the rival submissions. I have gone through the court record. The plaintiff’s witness statement dated 17th January 2012 and filed in court on 18th January 2012 is about 3 ½ pages long yet she gave her evidence in chief for a total of four days before she was cross examined. I have compared the witness statement and her evidence in chief and I find that she went out of her witness statement. The 1st defendant’s witness statement dated 14th May 2013 and filed in court on 15th May 2013 is about two pages.
3. In my view, the purpose of recording a witness statement is to give a brief outline of the evidence to be presented in evidence in chief.
4. The rules allowing the filing of witness statement were meant to expedite the hearing of suit. I am guided by Article 159 (2) (d) of the constitution in finding that this court ought not to dwell on technicalities but to administer justice.
5. No prejudice will be occasioned to the plaintiff as counsel has an opportunity to cross examine the 1st defendant extensively on the witness statement. I find this objection to be unmerited and the same is dismissed.
Dated, signed and delivered in Nairobi on this 12TH day of FEBRUARY 2019.
...........................
L. KOMINGOI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Mr. Ndungu for Machira for the plaintiff
Mr. Waweru advocate for the 1st defendant
Ms Machira for Maina for the 3rd defendant
Court Assistant - Kajuju