[2019] KEELC 4836 (KLR)
The court held that there was no sufficient ground to bar the plaintiffs from producing the original letters of allocation that were issued to them and which form the backbone of their claim. The court reasoned that since the plaintiffs are in possession of the original documents and claim to have received them from...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 4836 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Stephen Nyapara; Plaintiff: Absolom Simotwo; Plaintiff: Paul Kibelo; Defendant: Provincial Director of Settlement; Defendant: Richard Ngeiywa; Defendant: Henry Ndiema; Defendant: Mr. Towett
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 138 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Ruling on Admissibility of Documentary Evidence
- Outcome
- application partially allowed
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Documents, Allocation of Land, Settlement Schemes
- 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
Stephen Nyapara
Plaintiff
Absolom Simotwo
Plaintiff
Paul Kibelo
Plaintiff
Provincial Director of Settlement
Defendant
Richard Ngeiywa
Defendant
Henry Ndiema
Defendant
Mr. Towett
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Admissibility of Documentary Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs can produce original letters of allocation as evidence in support of their claim.
- 2 Whether the letters of allocation must be produced by their maker or can be produced by the recipients.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that there was no sufficient ground to bar the plaintiffs from producing the original letters of allocation that were issued to them and which form the backbone of their claim. The court reasoned that since the plaintiffs are in possession of the original documents and claim to have received them from the Ministry of Lands and Settlement, they are competent to produce them as evidence, at least in respect of their own individual allocations. The court limited the ruling to allow only the 1st plaintiff to produce the document issued to him, not those issued to others, thereby balancing the need for evidentiary authenticity with practical realities of document custody in land...
Court Disposition
application partially allowed
Orders
- The 1st plaintiff is permitted to produce in evidence only the letter of allocation issued to him.
- The application to recall the 1st plaintiff to produce allocation letters issued to other persons is denied.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 138 OF 2000
STEPHEN NYAPARA......................................................1ST PLAINTIFF
ABSOLOM SIMOTWO..................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
PAUL KIBELO................................................................3RD PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PROVINCIAL DIRECTOR OF SETTLEMENT......1ST DEFENDANT
RICHARD NGEIYWA................................................2ND DEFENDANT
HENRY NDIEMA........................................................3RD DEFENDANT
MR. TOWETT..............................................................4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. PW1, Stephen Nyapara, the 1st plaintiff testified on 4/10/2018. He had letters of allocation of land in Kitalale Settlement Scheme issued to different persons, including himself, which were marked PMFI 2 - 11.
2. His evidence was that he and others were issued with allotment letters in respect of land in Kitalale Settlement Scheme in 1998. When the letters of allotment were sought to be produced by PW1 Ms. Lungu objected and they were marked as PMFI 2-11. Ms. Arunga for the plaintiff never contested the objection at that time, maybe due to confidence on her part that there would be another witness who would produce the letters of allocation in evidence.
3. Later on Ms. Arunga wished to call the former Provincial Commissioner Rift Valley Province to produce the letters but withdrew from doing so as the proposed witness ceased being part of that office time back. She sought more time to call a witness who was serving in the office from which the letters originated.
4. On 3/12/2018 apparently flustered by lack of a witness Ms. Arunga applied to recall PW1 to produce the letters on the basis that he had been having their custody over a long period.
5. Ms. Lungu, naturally, again objected to the recalling of the witness for the purpose. She insisted that the letters should be produced by the maker.
6. These are documents that purport to be originals. It is the plaintiffs’ case that these are the documents that were issued to them by the then Ministry of Lands and Settlement.
7. I find no good ground to hold that the plaintiffs can not individually produce the said documents which they state were issued to them and which are the backbone of their claim.
8. I allow the application by Ms. Arunga but only to the extent that the 1st plaintiff will produce in this case only the document was issued to him.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 31st day of January, 2019.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
31/01/2019
Coram:
Before - Hon. Mwangi Njoroge, Judge
Court Assistant - Picoty
Mr. Wabwire for defendants
Ms. Arunga for plaintiffs
COURT
Ruling read in open court.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
31/01/2019