[2022] KEELC 2382 (KLR)
The court held that striking out electronic evidence for lack of a certificate under sections 106A and 106B of the Evidence Act is a draconian measure and not fatal, as the omission is curable by late filing. The court emphasized that the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Act and the right to a fair...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELC 2382 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Dennis Mwangeka Mombo; Defendant: Joseph Maina Nyoike
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 53 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Admissibility of Electronic Evidence and Directions for Expeditious Hearing
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MN Gicheru
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Electronic Evidence, Certificate Requirement, Trespass to Land, Pretrial Procedure
- 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
Dennis Mwangeka Mombo
Plaintiff
Joseph Maina Nyoike
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Admissibility of Electronic Evidence and Directions for Expeditious Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether electronic evidence dated 27/8/2020 is inadmissible for lack of a certificate under sections 106A and 106B of the Evidence Act.
- 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to have the phone used to record the electronic evidence produced for forensic examination.
- 3 Whether the application to strike out the electronic evidence is merited given the court's prior directions to abandon preliminary objections.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that striking out electronic evidence for lack of a certificate under sections 106A and 106B of the Evidence Act is a draconian measure and not fatal, as the omission is curable by late filing. The court emphasized that the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Act and the right to a fair hearing under the Constitution require flexibility in admitting evidence, provided procedural defects can be remedied. The court further noted that its prior directions required parties to abandon preliminary objections and focus on the substantive issue of trespass. The defendant's application was found to contravene these directions and was dismissed for lack of merit. The court...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The defendant's application to declare the electronic evidence inadmissible is dismissed.
- Each party is directed to file a copy of the official map from the land registry showing the two parcels in dispute within 60 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Mombo v Nyoike (Environment & Land Case 53 of 2020) [2022] KEELC 2382 (KLR) (30 June 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEELC 2382 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
Environment & Land Case 53 of 2020
MN Gicheru, J
June 30, 2022
Between
Dennis Mwangeka Mombo
Plaintiff
and
Joseph Maina Nyoike
Defendant
Ruling
1. This ruling is on the Notice of Motion dated March 9, 2022, which seeks to declare the electronic evidence dated 27/8/2020 inadmissible on the ground that the requisite certificate required under sections 106A and 106B of the Evidence Act has not been filed.The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the defendant which has quoted several decisions which have declared such evidence as inadmissible.The defendant has also filed a further affidavit dated 6/6/2022 but filed on 23/5/2022 in which he refers to practice directions dated 2014 which provide that a party may only object to the production of specific documents during the pretrial conference. The applicant also wishes to have the phone that was used to record the electronic evidence produced for cyber forensic examination by him and a report filed with the court.
2. The application by the defendant is opposed by the plaintiff who has sworn a replying affidavit in which he deposes that the application is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process because the court has already directed that all preliminary applications be abandoned.
3. I have carefully considered the application in its entirety including the affidavits, the grounds, the written submissions and the case law contained.
4I find that it is a draconian move to strike out evidence that could assist thecourt in arriving at a fair judgement in this case. Failure to include the said certificate is not fatal to the production of the said evidence because that failure is curable by a late filing. Amendment of pleadings can be at any time before judgment. It is therefore premature to declare any evidence admissible.
5TheConstitution of Kenya at article 50 (1) provides that every person who has a dispute before a court or a Tribunal has a right to a fair hearing. A fair hearing envisages the right to amend and file documents that may have been left out by mistake.
6The question which should bother the parties and the court in this case is very simple. It is whether thedefendant has trespassed onto L.R. Kajiado/Kaputiei/North/23713.
7Thedefendant has stated at paragraph 4 of his witness statement that his land is not adjacent to the suit land. Yet a look at the record does not show any maps showing the Plaintiffs and the defendants respective parcels. It is almost two (2) years since this suit was filed yet the material that would assist the court in concluding the matter expeditiously has not yet been filed.
8Under section 1A (3) of the Civil Procedure Act, it is provided as follows;A party to civil proceedings or an advocate for such a party is under a duty to assist the Court to further the overriding objective of the Act and, to that effect, to participate in the process of the Court and to comply with directions and orders of the Court.”
9The overriding objective of the Act is itself captured in section 1A (1) as follows;The overriding objective of this Act and the rules made here under is to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable revolution of civil disputes governed by the Act.”
10The court gave directions on 1/11/2021 that all preliminary objections be abandoned so that we focus on the issues of trespass. The current application goes against those directions. I find that it has no merit and I dismiss it.
11Secondly, in order that the suit may be concluded expeditiously, I direct that each party files a copy of the official map from the land registry showing the two parcels in dispute so that we may determine whether they abut each other.
12Such evidence to be filed and served within 60 days.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KAJIADO THIS 30THDAY OF JUNE, 2022. M.N. GICHERUJUDGE