[2025] KEHC 7212 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 7212 (KLR)

The court found that the transaction in question was pleaded in the plaint and referenced in the witness statement of Hon. Peter Mijungu, who is listed as a witness. The defendant admitted to the transaction and the amount involved. The court held that the late filing of the Mpesa printout, which evidences the transaction, would not prejudice the defendant, as the transaction was already disclosed at the onset of the suit. The court emphasized that its discretion to admit additional evidence must be exercised judiciously, considering the need for full disclosure and fairness, but also the overriding objective of doing substantive justice. Since the document was not available at the time...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 7212 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Hon Zachary Okoth Obado; Defendant: Eddy Anayo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Migori
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
13 February 2025
Case Number
Civil Suit E005 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Application to Admit Additional Evidence
Outcome
Application allowed; plaintiff permitted to file Mpesa printout statement as additional evidence.
Judges
A. Ong’injo
Legal Topics
Admission of Additional Evidence, Pre Trial Disclosure, Exercise of Judicial Discretion
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Admission of Additional Evidence Pre Trial Disclosure Exercise of Judicial Discretion

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hon Zachary Okoth Obado

Plaintiff

Eddy Anayo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Application to Admit Additional Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be allowed to file an Mpesa printout statement as additional evidence after close of pleadings.
  2. 2 Whether the admission of the document would prejudice the defendant or amount to trial by ambush.
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to allow late filing of documents in the interests of justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the transaction in question was pleaded in the plaint and referenced in the witness statement of Hon. Peter Mijungu, who is listed as a witness. The defendant admitted to the transaction and the amount involved. The court held that the late filing of the Mpesa printout, which evidences the transaction, would not prejudice the defendant, as the transaction was already disclosed at the onset of the suit. The court emphasized that its discretion to admit additional evidence must be exercised judiciously, considering the need for full disclosure and fairness, but also the overriding objective of doing substantive justice. Since the document was not available at the time...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; plaintiff permitted to file Mpesa printout statement as additional evidence.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is allowed to file the Mpesa printout statement of transaction as additional evidence.
  • No order as to costs.