https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9842

Khan v Khan & 3 others (Civil Suit E146 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 9842 (KLR) (Civ) (18 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9842 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Civil Civil Suit E146 of 2021 SN Mutuku, J June 18, 2026 Between Najda Khan Plaintiff and Najda Khan 1st Defendant Dr Navin C Raina 2nd Defendant Dr Dennis Nyambane 3rd Defendant Medical Practitioners and Dentists Board 4th Defendant Ruling 1.This ruling relates to a verbal application by Mr. Juma, counsel for the Plaintiff seeking leave of the court to submit further list of documents by the Plaintiff dated 9th June 2026. 2.This case is partly heard. Two witnesses have testified in support of the Plaintiff’s case. However, the Plaintiff is yet to testify. On 9th of June 2026, when this matter was fixed for hearing, specifically for recalling PW1, Nazlin Umar Rajput for further cross-examination, Mr. Juma moved the court with the application subject of this ruling. Counsel submitted that he had filed further list of documents containing the Plaintiff’s medical bill issued to her by the 1st Defendant. This was the subject of the application. 3.Counsel explained that his client was not in possession of the document at the time of case management because it could not be traced due to moving houses. He stated that the document was not new but emanates from the 1st Defendant and is useful to the Plaintiff as a basis of the case against the 1st and 2nd Defendants; that the document will be used in evidence by the Plaintiff who was yet to testify and that the document will not be prejudicial to the defendants. 4.The application was opposed by Mr. Karuti, counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants who argued that the document is being introduced after the commencement of the Plaintiff’s case after two witnesses have already testified. Counsel argued that the reasons advanced for introducing the document were given from the bar; that the document is intended to patch up the gaps created by the evidence of PW1 and PW2; that the document has been sneaked in to steal a march and ought to be struck out and expunged from the record. 5.Counsel argued further that on the face of the document, it shows that it did not emanate from the 1st Defendant as there is no official stamp or signature from the 1st Defendant and that should the court consider allowing the admission of the document, then the Plaintiff ought to file a formal application. 6.Ms Kado for the 4th Defendant associated herself with the submissions of Mr. Karuti in objecting to have the document introduced in evidence at this stage of the trial. She argued that the production of the document will be prejudicial to the defendants. 7.In a rejoinder, Mr. Juma stated that the authenticity of the document can be handled through cross-examination; that the doctor shown on the document and it has not been denied that the said doctor is from the 1st Defendant, nor has the contents of the document been denied and that the 4th Defendant dis not explain how it was likely to suffer any prejudice. 8.I have considered the arguments in support and against the introduction of the document indicated as the Plaintiff’s Further List of Documents. It is dated 9th June 2026. It contains six (6) pages. A close scrutiny of the same shows that it is titled “Interim Bill-Not a Final Bill, as on 11/7/2018 13:58:02”. The document shows the Plaintiff, Nadja Khan as the patient and date of admissions as 08/07/2018 at 14:18:33 in KTW=KANTARIA WING. The doctor is indicated as Dr. Mohamed Jivanjee. I am not able to tell whether this is one doctor or two doctors. 9.I have noted that other than the Patient’s name and the doctor(s) indicated on the document, the date of admissions, the details of the Ward and Wind of the Hospital, the name of the Hospital is not named. For this I agree with defence that there in nothing to show that the document emanates from the 1st Defendant. However, it is my considered view that the authenticity of the document can be clarified through cross-examination. 10.Consequently, it is my considered view, after careful consideration of the submissions of the parties on the issue of admission of the document in issue, that no prejudice will be suffered by the defendants. While I note that two witnesses for the Plaintiff have testified, the Plaintiff, who was the patient for purposes of this trial, is yet to testify. She is better placed to answer the questions regarding the document. 11.I have considered the issue raised by the defence that the Plaintiff ought to have filed a formal application instead of addressing the court from the bar. I have invoked section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act that gives this court inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. 12.I am alive care ought to be taken to ensure that no party to this suit shall be prejudiced by the introduction of this document. My allowing the introduction of this document at this stage of the trial is based on the fact that the Plaintiff has not testified and the defence is yet to mount their case. They will have the opportunity to question the authenticity of this document. 13.In conclusion, I hereby admit the Plaintiff’s Further List of Documents dated 9th June 2026 into these proceedings. Since the document has already been filed, I hereby deem it as duly filed admit it as prayed. 14.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ON 18TH JUNE 2026.S. N. MUTUKUJUDGE