[2025] KEELC 5334 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 5334 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant did not demonstrate that the lower court refused to admit any material evidence, nor did the court itself require the production of new documents or examination of witnesses to pronounce judgment. The application failed to show that the documents sought to be introduced could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial or that they were discovered after the lower court's judgment. The grounds for the application mirrored the grounds of appeal, and the court held that if the appeal were meritorious, a retrial would allow for the introduction of all relevant evidence. Consequently, the application for leave to adduce additional...

Citation
[2025] KEELC 5334 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Peter Kamau Njenga; Respondent: Dr Alice Chepkemoi Ruto
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Thika
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
14 July 2025
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal E023 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application to Adduce Additional Evidence on Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
JA Mogeni
Legal Topics
Additional Evidence on Appeal, Appellate Procedure, Adduction of Documents, Criteria for New Evidence, Land Dispute Appeals
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Additional Evidence on Appeal Appellate Procedure Adduction of Documents Criteria for New Evidence Land Dispute Appeals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Kamau Njenga

Appellant

Dr Alice Chepkemoi Ruto

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application to Adduce Additional Evidence on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant has satisfied the criteria for adducing additional evidence on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought to be introduced could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial.
  3. 3 Whether the application meets the requirements under Section 78 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant did not demonstrate that the lower court refused to admit any material evidence, nor did the court itself require the production of new documents or examination of witnesses to pronounce judgment. The application failed to show that the documents sought to be introduced could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial or that they were discovered after the lower court's judgment. The grounds for the application mirrored the grounds of appeal, and the court held that if the appeal were meritorious, a retrial would allow for the introduction of all relevant evidence. Consequently, the application for leave to adduce additional...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.