[2025] KEHC 5080 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 5080 (KLR)

The court held that the appellant failed to satisfy the conditions for adducing additional evidence on appeal as set out in Order 42 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The appellant did not first seek review before the trial court upon discovery of the new evidence, nor did she demonstrate sufficient cause for the appellate court to admit the evidence at this stage. The court emphasized that the appropriate procedure would have been to apply for review in the trial court, and only upon refusal, seek leave from the appellate court. The court further noted that the parties had already taken directions to dispose of the appeal by written submissions, limiting the court's ability to admit...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 5080 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Hilda Anyango Onyango; Respondent: Monica Atieno Rateng
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Siaya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
30 April 2025
Case Number
Succession Cause E002 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Adduce Additional Evidence on Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DK Kemei
Legal Topics
Adduction of Additional Evidence, Appeals Procedure, Succession and Inheritance, Review of Trial Court Orders
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Family and Children Adduction of Additional Evidence Appeals Procedure Succession and Inheritance Review of Trial Court Orders

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hilda Anyango Onyango

Appellant

Monica Atieno Rateng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Adduce Additional Evidence on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellate court should grant leave to the appellant to file further evidence in the form of a chief's letter identifying her as a widow to the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant ought to have first sought review before the trial court before seeking to adduce new evidence on appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the application meets the threshold for adducing additional evidence under Order 42 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant failed to satisfy the conditions for adducing additional evidence on appeal as set out in Order 42 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The appellant did not first seek review before the trial court upon discovery of the new evidence, nor did she demonstrate sufficient cause for the appellate court to admit the evidence at this stage. The court emphasized that the appropriate procedure would have been to apply for review in the trial court, and only upon refusal, seek leave from the appellate court. The court further noted that the parties had already taken directions to dispose of the appeal by written submissions, limiting the court's ability to admit...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The appellant's application dated 4/2/2025 is dismissed.
  • There shall be no orders as to costs.