[2019] KEELC 1545 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate why the documents could not have been produced earlier, either before the initial trial court or at the time of filing the instant appeal. The applicant also failed to specify which documents were to be introduced and their evidentiary value. In the absence of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 1545 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samuel K. Ngerechi; Applicant: Richard K. Bosek; Applicant: Wilson K. Sang; Applicant: Joseph Mosonik; Respondent: Joseph Kipkoech Ngerechi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 7 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Stay Delivery of Ruling and for Leave to File Supplementary Affidavit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- MN Kullow
- Legal Topics
- Admission of Additional Evidence, Stay of Ruling, Supplementary Affidavit, Procedural Timelines
- 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
Samuel K. Ngerechi
Applicant
Richard K. Bosek
Applicant
Wilson K. Sang
Applicant
Joseph Mosonik
Applicant
Joseph Kipkoech Ngerechi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Stay Delivery of Ruling and for Leave to File Supplementary Affidavit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file a supplementary affidavit to introduce new documents after close of pleadings.
- 2 Whether the delivery of the ruling in respect of the earlier Notice of Motion should be stayed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate why the documents could not have been produced earlier, either before the initial trial court or at the time of filing the instant appeal. The applicant also failed to specify which documents were to be introduced and their evidentiary value. In the absence of sufficient explanation and particularization, the court held that there was no merit in the application to stay the delivery of the ruling or to grant leave to file a supplementary affidavit. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 27th February, 2019 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAORK
ELC MISC APPL. NO. 7 OF 2018
SAMUEL K. NGERECHI......................................................1ST APPLICANT
RICHARD K. BOSEK...........................................................2ND APPLICANT
WILSON K. SANG................................................................3RD APPLICANT
JOSEPH MOSONIK..............................................................4TH APPLICANT
VERSUS
JOSEPH KIPKOECH NGERECHI........................................RESPONDENT
RULING
By a Notice of Motion dated 27th February, 2019 the Applicant sought for orders to stay the delivery of a Ruling in respect of Notice of Motion dated 4th May, 2018 and the court to grant leave to file a supplementary affidavit to introduce new documents after the close of pleadings.
The Application was based on the grounds that the Applicant is still within time frame to have the documents filed and that the said documents have come to his attention after he filed the proceedings and that they should be accorded the chance to pursue the Appeal out of time. The Application was supported by the Affidavit of Joseph Kipkoech Ngerich in which he deponed that he has been in possession of certain documents that he wishes to bring to the attention of the court and that it shall serve the interest of justice if the same is allowed.
The Application was opposed by way of a replying affidavit of Samuel K. Ngerech in which he deponed that the applicant is deliberately trying to delay the delivery of the Ruling of the court and that the Application is only meant to introduce extraneous issues in the matter and that the constituting petition is completely different.
I have read the Application before me and the submissions filed. This is a matter in which the applicant wishes to introduce new evidence after the parties have argued a case. The Applicant has not demonstrated why he could not produce the said documents and I find that the Applicant has every opportunity before the initial trial court and the filing of the instant appeal to file the new documents. In every event the Applicant has not particularized which are the said documents and the evenditionary value they hold and in the circumstances I find that the Notice of Motion dated 27th February, 2019 lacks merit and I dismiss the same with costs.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED in open court at NAROK on this 2ND day of OCTOBER, 2019
Mohammed Kullow
Judge
2/10/19
In the presence of: -
CA:Chuma
Mr Langat holding brief for Mr Njiru for the applicant
N/A for the Respondents
Mohammed Kullow
Judge
2/10/19