[2018] KEELC 4014 (KLR)
The court held that the statements made by the deceased William Cheruiyot Lelmet are admissible as evidence because they are relevant to the issues in dispute, arose from direct communication between the parties, and the plaintiff's evidence is subject to cross-examination. The court recognized exceptions to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 4014 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Richard Toroitich; Defendant: Mike K. Lelmet; Defendant: Elisheba C. Lelmet; Defendant: Pauline J. Lelmet; Defendant: Esther J. Lelmet (suing as administrators of the estate of William Cheruiyot Lelmet)
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 17 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Ruling on Evidentiary Objection
- Outcome
- objection overruled; evidence admitted; hearing to proceed
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Hearsay Exception, Oral Agreements, Estate Administration
- 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
Richard Toroitich
Plaintiff
Mike K. Lelmet
Defendant
Elisheba C. Lelmet
Defendant
Pauline J. Lelmet
Defendant
Esther J. Lelmet (suing as administrators of the estate of William Cheruiyot Lelmet)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Evidentiary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether statements made by the deceased William Cheruiyot Lelmet are admissible as evidence in the proceedings.
- 2 Whether the objection to the admissibility of such statements as hearsay should be upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the statements made by the deceased William Cheruiyot Lelmet are admissible as evidence because they are relevant to the issues in dispute, arose from direct communication between the parties, and the plaintiff's evidence is subject to cross-examination. The court recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule, noting that while the deceased cannot be cross-examined, the evidence is not being treated as conclusive but as part of the factual matrix to be tested in court. The objection to admissibility was therefore overruled, and the evidence was allowed to be tendered, with the hearing to proceed.
Court Disposition
objection overruled; evidence admitted; hearing to proceed
Orders
- The objection to the admissibility of the deceased's statements is overruled.
- The said evidence shall be tendered.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 17 OF 2014
RICHARD TOROITICH……...........PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MIKE K. LELMET
ELISHEBA C. LELMET ..............DEFENDANTS
PAULINE J. LELMET
ESTHER J. LELMET (suing as administrators
of theestate ofWILLIAM CHERUIYOT LELMET)
R U L I N G (2)
1. Objection has been raised to the stating of what the deceased said when he was alive. The plaintiff and the deceased William Cheruiyot Lelmet admittedly contracted over the suit land and were in communication. The evidence of what the deceased stated is relevant to these proceedings. The only impossibility is that he cannot be called as a witness or for cross examination as he is now deceased. There are exceptions to the rule against hearsay as admitted by Prof. Sifuna.
2. I find that the agreement that the parties made made it possible for them to be in communication with one another. The evidence of what the deceased said is to be taken only as a face of that “saying” and not as the gospel truth. The reality here is that the plaintiff’s evidence is subject to cross examination and as long as it is relevant and directly linked to the matters in issue in the suit, it is admissible subject to such verification. It may also provide certain explanations that this court does not have.
3. For those reasons I overrule the objection and order that the said evidence shall be tendered.
Hearing to proceed.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 8th day of February, 2018.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
COURT
Ruling read in open court in the presence of the parties and their counsel.
Court Assistant - Isabellah.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
8/2/2018