[2019] KEELC 4694 (KLR)
The court held that since the documents in question were already part of the 1st defendant's bundle and not being introduced for the first time, and as the trial was ongoing, the 1st defendant should be allowed to call the witness to adduce the documentary evidence. The absence of a prior witness statement and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 4694 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Dr. Prawan Kumar Gupta; Defendant: Eng Isaac G. Wanjohi; Defendant: Rashid M. Kheri; Defendant: Omarn Mzaruba Mwishee
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 142 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property / Ruling on Objection to Witness Testimony During Defence Hearing
- Outcome
- objection overruled
- Judges
- CK Yano
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Witness Statements, Documentary Evidence, Trial Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dr. Prawan Kumar Gupta
Plaintiff
Eng Isaac G. Wanjohi
Defendant
Rashid M. Kheri
Defendant
Omarn Mzaruba Mwishee
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property / Ruling on Objection to Witness Testimony During Defence Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a party can call a witness not listed in the original witness list to testify and produce documents already filed.
- 2 Whether the absence of a witness statement precludes the witness from testifying.
- 3 Whether allowing the witness to testify would prejudice the other parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the documents in question were already part of the 1st defendant's bundle and not being introduced for the first time, and as the trial was ongoing, the 1st defendant should be allowed to call the witness to adduce the documentary evidence. The absence of a prior witness statement and the witness not being on the original list did not, in the circumstances, justify excluding the evidence, especially as the other parties would have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and could be compensated by costs if necessary. The court emphasized that the overriding objective and Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution require that justice be administered without undue...
Court Disposition
objection overruled
Orders
- The 1st defendant is at liberty to call the witness and proceed to testify.
- If the other parties require a witness statement, the 1st defendant may file and serve the same forthwith to allow the matter to proceed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MOMBASA
ELC. NO. 142 OF 2012
DR. PRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA......................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. ENG ISAAC G. WANJOHI
2. RASHID M. KHERI
3. OMARN MZARUBA MWISHEE...........................DEFENDANTS
RULING
1. On 11th October 2018 this matter came up for further defence hearing. Dr. Kamau Kuria, SC, counsel for the 1st defendant wanted to introduce his next witness, Mrs. Damaris Gitonga, the author of two letters in the 1st defendant’s bundle of documents. However Mrs. Umara, counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Oddiaga counsel for the 2nd defendant and Mr. Simunyu, counsel for the 3rd defendant objected to the witness testifying for the reason that the witness was not one of the witnesses listed in the 1st defendant’s witness list and that no witness statement had been filed and served in respect of the said witness. Further that the witness is not an expert witness hence cannot testify and produce the said documents.
2. I have considered the objection raised and the rival submissions made. There is no dispute that the documents in question form part of the 1st defendant’s bundle of documents filed on 24th October 2012. The documents are not being introduced in the proceedings for the first time.
3. There is also not doubt that the witness sought to be introduced did not form part of the 1st defendant’s list of witnesses and has not recorded any witness statement. The court however, takes note that the trial is still on and the witness is yet to testify. In my view and being guided by the provisions of Article 159 (2) (d) of the constitution, the 1st defendant can be allowed to call the witness to adduce the documentary evidence in issue. In my view, no prejudice will be caused to the other parties by the testimony of the said witness and the production of the said documents as they will have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness on the same. There is therefore room for the other parties in the case to test their worth in cross-examination. Furthermore, allowing the witness to testify and admitting the documents does not mean that they will be taken as gospel truth by the court especially where there is evidence to the contrary. It is the opinion of this court that a litigant should not be barred from laying all he has in terms of evidence before a court of law in furtherance of his case in a situation where the other side can be compensated by way of costs. If necessary, the 1st defendant may be allowed to file a further witness statement and serve the same on the other parties who will then prepare and interrogate the same during cross-examination.
4. The upshot is that the objection is overruled. The 1st defendant is at liberty to call the witness and proceed to testify, unless the other parties are desirous of being served with a witness statement, in which case the same may be filed and served forthwith to allow the matter to proceed.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at MOMBASA this 6th day of February 2019.
___________
C.K. YANO
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE OF:
Dr. Kamau Kusia. SC for 1st defendant
Mrs. Umara for plaintiff & holding brief for Siminyu for 3rd defendant.
Ms. Mwainzi holding brief for Oddiaga for 2nd defendant
Yumna Court Assistant
C.K. YANO
JUDGE
6/2/19