[2020] KEELC 3452 (KLR)
The court found that the trial had not commenced and the delay in filing the plaintiff's documents was less than one month past the deadline. Given that the documents were not new to the parties and that the overriding objective is to decide disputes on their merits, the court held that the documents should remain...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 3452 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: M’Mwongera Miruri; Defendant: Nancy Kanugu Mbaya (Legal representative of Ayubu Mbaya Mwongera – deceased); Defendant: Patrick Mbara Rusha; Defendant: Mbaabu Silas M’Ikiara; Defendant: Festus Mbaabu Ngaruthi; Defendant: Mbobua M’Mwongera
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 60 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Ruling / Interlocutory Application Regarding Admissibility of Documents
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's documents filed on 24.1.2020 are admitted; plaintiff barred from filing further documents; defendants granted leave to file additional documents within one month.
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Filing Timelines, Fair Trial Rights, Documentary Evidence
- 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
M’Mwongera Miruri
Plaintiff
Nancy Kanugu Mbaya (Legal representative of Ayubu Mbaya Mwongera – deceased)
Defendant
Patrick Mbara Rusha
Defendant
Mbaabu Silas M’Ikiara
Defendant
Festus Mbaabu Ngaruthi
Defendant
Mbobua M’Mwongera
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Ruling / Interlocutory Application Regarding Admissibility of Documents
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's bundle of documents filed on 24.1.2020 should be expunged from the record for being filed outside the prescribed timelines.
- 2 Whether allowing the documents would prejudice the defendants or amount to ambush, contrary to the right to a fair trial.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial had not commenced and the delay in filing the plaintiff's documents was less than one month past the deadline. Given that the documents were not new to the parties and that the overriding objective is to decide disputes on their merits, the court held that the documents should remain on record. However, the plaintiff was barred from filing any further documents, and the defendants were granted leave to file any additional documents within one month. This approach balanced the need for procedural compliance with the constitutional right to a fair trial and the substantive justice of the case.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's documents filed on 24.1.2020 are admitted; plaintiff barred from filing further documents; defendants granted leave to file additional documents within one month.
Orders
- The plaintiff's documents filed on 24.1.2020 are deemed properly on record.
- The plaintiff shall not file any further documents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC CASE NO. 60 OF 2011
M’MWONGERA MIRURI................................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NANCY KANUGU MBAYA
(Legal representative of Ayubu Mbaya Mwongera – deceased)...........1ST DEFENDANT
PATRICK MBARA RUSHA...................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
MBAABU SILAS M’IKIARA................................................................3RD DEFENDANT
FESTUS MBAABU NGARUTHI..........................................................4TH DEFENDANT
MBOBUA M’MWONGERA.................................................................5TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This ruling is in respect of the application orally made by defence counsel to have the bundle of documents filed on 24. 1.2020 expunged from the record. It has been argued for the defence that the documents were filed outside the given timelines.
2. In response it was argued for the plaintiff that the documents were in another record of a Court of Appeal matter, that the documents are not strange as they were also availed in Nairobi case No. 2319 of 1984, and that some documents are from the firm of Gatari Ringera advocates and Mithega and Kariuki advocates. Another document is from defendant to plaintiff while others are copies of green cards.
3. The issue of filing documents is anchored on the principle of what amounts to a fair trial is. In the case of Johana Kipkemboi vs. Hellen Tum ELC NAIROBI NO. 975 OF 2012, Judge Munyao Sila held that in terms of Article 50 of the constitution, a trial would not be fair if a party was allowed to hide evidence and ambush the other party. In that case, the court disallowed the defence to avail additional witnesses and documents because the plaintiff’s case had been closed. In the case of Essanji and Another vs. Solanki (1968) EA at 224, the court stated that;
“The administration of justice should normally require that the substance of all disputes be investigated and decided on merits and that errors should not necessarily deter a litigant from the pursuits of his rights.”
4. I have considered that the trial has not kicked off, and that plaintiff delayed in filing their documents in less than one month as they were supposed to file the documents by 27. 12. 2019. In the circumstances, the documents filed on 24. 1.2020 are taken to be properly on record with a rider that plaintiff shall not file any further documents.
5. Defendant on the other hand is at liberty to file any other documents within a period of one month from date of delivery of this ruling.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 26TH FEBRUARY, 2020 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C/A: Kananu
Gatari R. for defendant
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE