[2022] KEELC 2459 (KLR)
The court found that the interests of justice required the reopening of the plaintiffs' case to allow them to adduce further evidence. The judge exercised discretion under Order 18 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, noting that the provision empowers the court to recall witnesses or allow additional evidence at...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELC 2459 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Michael Njuguna Muratha; Plaintiff: Catherine Njeri Kiboi; Plaintiff: Benjamin Njuguna; Plaintiff: David Kahonge Kamau; Plaintiff: Simon Mwangi; Plaintiff: Zacharia Githinji Ng’ang’a; Plaintiff: Charles Mwangi Gatu; Plaintiff: Veronica Wambui Mugo; Plaintiff: Peter Kimani; Plaintiff: Peter Waweru; Plaintiff: Peter Njoroge Mwangi; Plaintiff: Peter Ngige Moses; Plaintiff: Joseph Muiruri Mbugua; Plaintiff: Lucy Waithera Kamau; Plaintiff: Joseph Mbugua; Plaintiff: Felistas Njeri; Plaintiff: Johnson Kinua; Plaintiff: Francis Muhoro; Defendant: Margaret Nge’endo Wambaki; Defendant: Teresia Wanjiku Wambaki; Defendant: Joseph Kimani Gathecha; Defendant: Sameul Kamau Kuria; Defendant: Mary Wairimu Muringu t/a Wakibui Help Group Investment; Defendant: Chief Lands Registrar Thika
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 1206 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Reopen Plaintiffs' Case for Further Evidence
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Plaintiffs permitted to reopen their case and adduce further evidence. Costs to be borne by the plaintiffs.
- Judges
- LC Komingoi
- Legal Topics
- Reopening of Case, Adducing Additional Evidence, Recall of Witnesses, Court Discretion, Costs Orders
- 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
Michael Njuguna Muratha
Plaintiff
Catherine Njeri Kiboi
Plaintiff
Benjamin Njuguna
Plaintiff
David Kahonge Kamau
Plaintiff
Simon Mwangi
Plaintiff
Zacharia Githinji Ng’ang’a
Plaintiff
Charles Mwangi Gatu
Plaintiff
Veronica Wambui Mugo
Plaintiff
Peter Kimani
Plaintiff
Peter Waweru
Plaintiff
Peter Njoroge Mwangi
Plaintiff
Peter Ngige Moses
Plaintiff
Joseph Muiruri Mbugua
Plaintiff
Lucy Waithera Kamau
Plaintiff
Joseph Mbugua
Plaintiff
Felistas Njeri
Plaintiff
Johnson Kinua
Plaintiff
Francis Muhoro
Plaintiff
Margaret Nge’endo Wambaki
Defendant
Teresia Wanjiku Wambaki
Defendant
Joseph Kimani Gathecha
Defendant
Sameul Kamau Kuria
Defendant
Mary Wairimu Muringu t/a Wakibui Help Group Investment
Defendant
Chief Lands Registrar Thika
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Reopen Plaintiffs' Case for Further Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be allowed to reopen their case to adduce further evidence.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Order 18 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules to recall witnesses or allow further evidence.
- 3 Who should bear the costs of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the interests of justice required the reopening of the plaintiffs' case to allow them to adduce further evidence. The judge exercised discretion under Order 18 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, noting that the provision empowers the court to recall witnesses or allow additional evidence at any stage of the proceedings. The court considered the circumstances and determined that no undue prejudice would be caused to the defendants by granting the application. The application was therefore allowed, with costs to be borne by the plaintiffs.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Plaintiffs permitted to reopen their case and adduce further evidence. Costs to be borne by the plaintiffs.
Orders
- The plaintiffs/applicants are allowed to reopen their case and provide further evidence in relation to this suit.
- Costs of the application to be borne by the plaintiffs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
70 paragraphs
Muratha & 17 others v Wambaki & 5 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 1206 of 2015) [2022] KEELC 2459 (KLR) (28 April 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEELC 2459 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 1206 of 2015
LC Komingoi, J
April 28, 2022
Between
Michael Njuguna Muratha
1st Plaintiff
Catherine Njeri Kiboi
2nd Plaintiff
Benjamin Njuguna
3rd Plaintiff
David Kahonge Kamau
4th Plaintiff
Simon Mwangi
5th Plaintiff
Zacharia Githinji Ng’ang’a
6th Plaintiff
Charles Mwangi Gatu
7th Plaintiff
Veronica Wambui Mugo
8th Plaintiff
Peter Kimani
9th Plaintiff
Peter Waweru
10th Plaintiff
Peter Njoroge Mwangi
11th Plaintiff
Peter Ngige Moses
12th Plaintiff
Joseph Muiruri Mbugua
13th Plaintiff
Lucy Waithera Kamau
14th Plaintiff
Joseph Mbugua
15th Plaintiff
Felistas Njeri
16th Plaintiff
Johnson Kinua
17th Plaintiff
Francis Muhoro
18th Plaintiff
and
Margaret Nge’endo Wambaki
1st Defendant
Teresia Wanjiku Wambaki
2nd Defendant
Joseph Kimani Gathecha
3rd Defendant
Sameul Kamau Kuria
4th Defendant
Mary Wairimu Muringu t/a Wakibui Help Group Investment
5th Defendant
Chief Lands Registrar Thika
6th Defendant
Ruling
1. This is the notice of motion dated 3st November 2021 brought under section 1A, 1B(a), 3 and 3A, section 63 (e) of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21, order 51 rule 1 and all other enabling provisions of the law.
2. It seeks orders:-a.That the Plaintiffs/Applicants be allowed to reopen their case ad call for or provide further evidence in relation to this suit.b.That costs be in the cause.
3. The grounds are on the face of the application and are set out in paragraphs 1 to 7.
4. The application is supported by the affidavit of Michael Muratha, the 1st Plaintiff/Applicant herein sworn on the 3rd November 2021.
5. The application is opposed. There is a replying affidavit sworn by Joseph Kimani Gatheca, the 3rd Defendant/Respondent on the 10th November 2021.
6. I have considered the notice of motion and the affidavit in support. I have also considered the replying affidavit, and the submissions filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The issue for determination is whether this application is merited.
7. Order 18 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that:-“The court may at any stage of the suit recall any witness who has been examined, and may, subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force; put such questions to him as the court thinks fit.”
8. I have considered the rival positions. It is the Plaintiffs’ case that the case ought to be re-opened in order for them to adduce additional evidence.
9. I have considered the circumstances of this case and I find that it is in the interest of justice that I allow the application.
10. I find merit in this application and the same is allowed. The costs be borne by the Plaintiffs.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED NAIROBI THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2022. ……………………….L. KOMINGOIJUDGEIn the presence of:-Ms Wachira for Mr. Kahuthu for the PlaintiffsMr. Njonjo for the DefendantsSteve - Court Assistant