[2021] KEELC 3675 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 3675 (KLR)

The court found that the objection by the 5th defendant was without merit because the directions allowing the Land Registrar to testify and produce documents had already been given in the presence of all parties and had not been set aside or reviewed. The plaintiff had not closed its case and was entitled to call...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 3675 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Muvokanza Limited; Defendant: Nedmart Falls Kenya Limited; Defendant: Sylvester Kyalo Mutua; Defendant: Jamii Bora Bank Limited; Defendant: Muganda Wasula t/a Keysian Auctioneers; Defendant: The Chief Registrar of Titles
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 1180 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Case / Interlocutory Objection to Witness Testimony
Outcome
Objection dismissed; Land Registrar to testify.
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Witness Testimony, Land Registrar Role
Source Language
en
Land and Property Admissibility of Evidence Witness Testimony Land Registrar Role

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muvokanza Limited

Plaintiff

Nedmart Falls Kenya Limited

Defendant

Sylvester Kyalo Mutua

Defendant

Jamii Bora Bank Limited

Defendant

Muganda Wasula t/a Keysian Auctioneers

Defendant

The Chief Registrar of Titles

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Case / Interlocutory Objection to Witness Testimony

  1. 1 Whether the Land Registrar can be called as a witness by the plaintiff to produce documents supplied by the Land Registry.
  2. 2 Whether the objection by the 5th defendant to the Land Registrar's testimony is merited.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the objection by the 5th defendant was without merit because the directions allowing the Land Registrar to testify and produce documents had already been given in the presence of all parties and had not been set aside or reviewed. The plaintiff had not closed its case and was entitled to call the Land Registrar as a witness to produce the relevant documents. The court emphasized that no prejudice would be occasioned to the defendants, as they would have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Therefore, the objection was dismissed, and the Land Registrar was permitted to testify.

Court Disposition

Objection dismissed; Land Registrar to testify.

Orders

  • The objection by the 5th defendant is dismissed.
  • The Land Registrar shall testify and produce the documents stated on the summons dated 3rd September 2020.