[2021] KEELC 3456 (KLR)
The court found that permitting the defendant to file additional witness statements after the plaintiff had closed her case would amount to trial by ambush and would be highly prejudicial to the plaintiff. The court emphasized the need for fairness and a level playing field in civil litigation, noting that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 3456 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mary Auma Ooko; Defendant: Enock Otieno Oyuga; Defendant: Attorney General (Sued on behalf of the Ministry of Lands, Kisumu Land Registry)
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 34 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property / Ruling on Oral Application to File Additional Witness Statements After Close of Plaintiff's Case
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- A Ombwayo
- Legal Topics
- Admission of Evidence, Witness Statements, Trial Procedure, Prejudice to Parties
- 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
Mary Auma Ooko
Plaintiff
Enock Otieno Oyuga
Defendant
Attorney General (Sued on behalf of the Ministry of Lands, Kisumu Land Registry)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property / Ruling on Oral Application to File Additional Witness Statements After Close of Plaintiff's Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant should be allowed to file additional witness statements after the plaintiff has closed her case.
- 2 Whether allowing the application would amount to trial by ambush and prejudice the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that permitting the defendant to file additional witness statements after the plaintiff had closed her case would amount to trial by ambush and would be highly prejudicial to the plaintiff. The court emphasized the need for fairness and a level playing field in civil litigation, noting that introducing new evidence at this stage would allow the defendant to tailor his case in response to the plaintiff's evidence, undermining the integrity of the trial process. The court relied on established precedent and constitutional principles, concluding that the application lacked merit and should be dismissed to prevent injustice and prejudice to the plaintiff.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The defendant's application to file additional witness statements is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KISUMU
ELC CASE NO. 334 OF 2013
MARY AUMA OOKO...........................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ENOCK OTIENO OYUGA..........................................................1ST DEFENDANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sued on behalf of
the MINISTRY OF LANDS (Kisumu Land Registry)...............2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
The plaintiff closed his case on the 1/11/2018. The matter came up for defence hearing and the DW1, Enock Otieno Obuya testified. After the testimony by DW1 Mr. Mwamu sought to file witness statements of Mr. Joseph Ouma Ochilo and Amos Juma Sibondo whose names were in the list of witnesses but had not filed statements.
Mr. Mwamu’, learned counsel for the defendant argued that when he took over the case he thought that statements had been filed. He argues that the plaintiff will be prejudiced if not allowed to file statements. He refers to Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. Mr. Onyango learned counsel for the defendant argues that the plaintiff’s case was closed. The defendant will be conducting trial by ambush if allowed to file statements at this point.
I have considered the oral application and submissions and do find that allowing the application would amount to allowing the defendant to ambush the plaintiff with new evidence when the plaintiff has closed his case. Moreover, it will be highly prejudicial to the plaintiff who has already let his cat out of the bag. Moreover, there is danger of the defendant attempting the panel beat his case to counter the plaintiff’s assertions and to suit his prayers.
In the case of P.H. Ogola Onyango t/a PittsConsult Consulting Engineers vs Daniel Githegi g/a Quantalysis [2002] eKLR Waweru J. when faced with a similar situation stated as follows: -
meant to facilitate a quick and expeditious trial of the action. Though the court no doubt has jurisdiction to allow a party to introduce a document or documents once the opposing party has closed its case. ………… To allow him to introduce documents after the plaintiff has closed his case will occasion the plaintiff serious prejudice that cannot be cured by cross-examination. In Civil litigation there must be a level playing field. That field cannot be level were one party permitted to introduce documents in the trial after the opposite party has closed his case, and many years after pleadings closed.
It is therefore my considered view that this court would be perpetrating injustice and would prejudice the plaintiff’s case if it was to allow the defendant to introduce new evidence.
The application lacks merit hence, I do dismiss the same with costs. Orders accordingly.
DATED AT KISUMU THIS 30th DAY OF APRIL, 2021
ANTONY OMBWAYO
JUDGE
This Ruling has been delivered to the parties by electronic mail due to measures restricting court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in the light of the directions issued by his Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2019.
ANTONY OMBWAYO
JUDGE