[2018] KEELC 2577 (KLR)
The court found that the documents in question, except for item 7, originated from the county government of Isiolo or its predecessor, and their authenticity could be verified from the source. Item 7, issued by the assistant registrar, was also deemed a public document whose authenticity could be ascertained. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2577 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Waso Building & Road Works Co. Ltd; Defendant: Fayo Galgalo; Defendant: Abdullahi Dalacha; Defendant: Asli Roba on behalf of Ali Roba; Defendant: Abdullahi Abdirahman; Defendant: Abdikadir Galgalo; Defendant: Abdi Kuso; Defendant: Maalim Malow; Defendant: Abdi Hussein
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 92 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property / Ruling on Objection to Production of Documents
- Outcome
- Objection declined; plaintiff's witness allowed to produce documents.
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Public Documents, 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
Waso Building & Road Works Co. Ltd
Plaintiff
Fayo Galgalo
Defendant
Abdullahi Dalacha
Defendant
Asli Roba on behalf of Ali Roba
Defendant
Abdullahi Abdirahman
Defendant
Abdikadir Galgalo
Defendant
Abdi Kuso
Defendant
Maalim Malow
Defendant
Abdi Hussein
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property / Ruling on Objection to Production of Documents
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's documents, mostly emanating from the county government, can be produced by PW1 or must be produced by county officials.
- 2 Whether item 7, a document from the assistant registrar, is admissible as a public document.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the documents in question, except for item 7, originated from the county government of Isiolo or its predecessor, and their authenticity could be verified from the source. Item 7, issued by the assistant registrar, was also deemed a public document whose authenticity could be ascertained. The court noted that the defence was also relying on similar documents and was at liberty to call county personnel if necessary. Therefore, the objection to PW1 producing the documents was declined, and PW1 was allowed to produce them.
Court Disposition
Objection declined; plaintiff's witness allowed to produce documents.
Orders
- PW1 is allowed to produce the documents in the plaintiff's list.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MERU
ELC NO 92 OF 2008
WASO BUILDING & ROAD WORKS CO. LTD.............PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
FAYO GALGALO......................................................1ST DEFENDANT
ABDULAHI DALACHA...........................................2ND DEFENDANT
ASLI ROBA ON BEHALF OF ALI ROBA.............3RD DEFENDANT
ABDULAHI ABDIRAHMAN....................................4TH DEFENDANT
ABDIKADIR GALGALO............................................5TH DEFENDANT
ABDI KUSO..................................................................6TH DEFENDANT
MAALIM MALOW......................................................7TH DEFENDANT
ABDI HUSSEIN.............................................................8TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. An objection has been raised by defence who aver that plaintiff’s documents in the list of 22. 4.2013 (same item) should be produced by the officials of the county government of Isiolo.
2. Plaintiff’s counsel on the other hand avers that the documents are public documents issued to plaintiff and hence PW 1 moved be allowed to produce the same.
3. I have scrutinized all the documents in the list (item 1-10). All these documents save item 7 appear to emanate from the county government of Isiolo (to be precise, the predecessor). Their authenticity can therefore be ascertained from the source. For item 7, the document is from assistant Registrar. It is also a public document. Likewise the authenticity of the said document can be ascertained.
4. It is not lost to this court that defence too is relying on documents mostly emanating from the county government and they are hence at liberty to call the personnel there to shed light on any issue regarding this matter.
5. In the circumstances, I decline to uphold the objection. PW 1 is allowed to produce the document in his list.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 7TH DAY OF MAY, 2018
HON. L. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE