[2023] KEELC 15901 (KLR)
The court found that PW5, having drawn and attested to the original sale agreement and having explained the circumstances of its creation and the unavailability of the original, was the most competent witness to produce a copy of the agreement. The court held that a sufficient basis had been laid under section 68 of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 15901 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Reliance Metals Limited; Defendant: Vejordia Garden Villa Ltd
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 277 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Objection to Production of Secondary Evidence
- Outcome
- Objection disallowed; production of copy of agreement allowed.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Secondary Evidence, Sale Agreements, Production of Documents
- 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
Reliance Metals Limited
Plaintiff
Vejordia Garden Villa Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Objection to Production of Secondary Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a proper basis has been laid for the production of secondary evidence of the sale agreement dated November 15, 2010.
- 2 Whether PW5 is a competent witness to produce a copy of the sale agreement in the absence of the original.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that PW5, having drawn and attested to the original sale agreement and having explained the circumstances of its creation and the unavailability of the original, was the most competent witness to produce a copy of the agreement. The court held that a sufficient basis had been laid under section 68 of the Evidence Act for the production of secondary evidence. The objection by the defendant was therefore disallowed, and PW5 was permitted to produce the copy of the agreement as an exhibit.
Court Disposition
Objection disallowed; production of copy of agreement allowed.
Orders
- PW5 shall produce a copy of the agreement dated November 15, 2010 as Plaintiff's Exhibit 3.
- Hearing to proceed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Reliance Metals Limited v Vejordia Garden Villa Ltd (Environment & Land Case 277 of 2015) [2023] KEELC 15901 (KLR) (3 March 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 15901 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Environment & Land Case 277 of 2015
FM Njoroge, J
March 3, 2023
Between
Reliance Metals Limited
Plaintiff
and
Vejordia Garden Villa Ltd
Defendant
Ruling
1. The production of a copy of the sale agreement dated November 15, 2010 by PW5 is opposed by Mr. Otieno for the defendant. PW5 is the person who has owned up to having drawn and attested to the original agreement while he was working as a legal practitioner in the legal firm of Cheptumo & Co Advocates.
2. He has indicated the circumstances in which he drew and attested to that agreement, and further stated that an original copy of the agreement would ordinarily be found at that firm which he left about 12 years ago.
3. Mr Otieno for the defence is of the view that a notice to produce was issued to the plaintiff’s counsel on November 26, 2018 and that no original has been placed before court as at date and also that no explanation has been given for such omission. Mr Otieno recollected that there was oral evidence adduced in the present suit that the original had been submitted to a bank for credit purposes, there was no substantiation of that claim or further evidence that the plaintiff had attempted to obtain the original from the bank for production in the present suit.
4. Under the provisions of section 68, secondary evidence of a document can be produced when a basis has been laid for the production of such secondary evidence.
5. The witness PW5 has testified that he drew the original of the agreement and identified the agreement as presented to him in this court at the hearing of his evidence-in-chief as the document that he drew. He has outlined the circumstances under which he drew the agreement and stated that the clients were present in his office.
6. He has also indicated that he left the firm of Cheptumo & Co Advocates 12 years ago. In those circumstances where he was merely working for that firm, he cannot be expected to have the original, yet, of all the witnesses in this case he appears the most competent witness to produce the said document.
7. In this court’s view therefore, a basis has been laid under section 68 1(a) (i), 1(a) (ii) and 1(b) of the Evidence Act as to why the witness PW5 is competent to produce the copy of agreement in this case dated November 15, 2010.
8. In the circumstances I disallow the objection by Mr Otieno and I order that PW5 shall produce a copy of the agreement as PExh 3. Hearing to proceed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2023. MWANGI NJOROGEJUDGE, ELC, NAKURU