[2025] KEHC 7531 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 7531 (KLR)

The court held that it is unprocedural to introduce new evidence after pleadings and submissions have closed in an application. Allowing such evidence would necessitate reopening the pleadings, granting the respondents time to respond, and ultimately causing delay. The court emphasized that if the ruling of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 7531 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Francis Kinyanjui Mburu; Appellant: John Mburu Njugua; Respondent: Herman Angwenyi Kengere; Respondent: Jeremiah Muchendu t/a Icon Auctioneers; Respondent: Jane Muniu t/a Icon Autioneers; Respondent: Motor Scope Auto Garage
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Thika
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E008 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of New Evidence in Amended Motion
Outcome
Application to admit new evidence after close of pleadings is declined.
Judges
FN Muchemi
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Late Filing of Documents
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Admissibility of Evidence Procedural Fairness Late Filing of Documents

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Kinyanjui Mburu

Appellant

John Mburu Njugua

Appellant

Herman Angwenyi Kengere

Respondent

Jeremiah Muchendu t/a Icon Auctioneers

Respondent

Jane Muniu t/a Icon Autioneers

Respondent

Motor Scope Auto Garage

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of New Evidence in Amended Motion

  1. 1 Whether it is procedural to introduce new evidence after pleadings and submissions have closed in an amended motion.
  2. 2 Whether the court should allow further affidavits and documents at a late stage in the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it is unprocedural to introduce new evidence after pleadings and submissions have closed in an application. Allowing such evidence would necessitate reopening the pleadings, granting the respondents time to respond, and ultimately causing delay. The court emphasized that if the ruling of the Deputy Registrar is relevant, it can refer to the record as the Deputy Registrar acts under the court's authority. Therefore, in the interests of justice and procedural fairness, the court declined to admit the new evidence and directed that the matter proceed to ruling on the Amended Motion as previously scheduled.

Court Disposition

Application to admit new evidence after close of pleadings is declined.

Orders

  • No further affidavits or documents to be filed in respect of the Amended Motion dated 27/01/2025.
  • The court will proceed to fix a ruling date on the Amended Motion.