[2017] KEHC 6012 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 6012 (KLR)

The court held that the certificate dated 17th February, 2017, did not meet the mandatory requirements of section 106B(4) of the Evidence Act, as it lacked material particulars such as a description of how the electronic record was produced, particulars of the device, and other required information. The omission was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 6012 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: William Kazungu Simbah; Defendant: Housing Finance Company of Kenya Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 372 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Evidentiary Objection
Outcome
Objection upheld; certificate and electronic evidence inadmissible.
Judges
LM Njuguna
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Electronic Evidence, Certificate of Electronic Evidence
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Admissibility of Evidence Electronic Evidence Certificate of Electronic Evidence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Kazungu Simbah

Plaintiff

Housing Finance Company of Kenya Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Evidentiary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the certificate dated 17th February, 2017, accompanying electronic evidence, meets the requirements of section 106B of the Evidence Act for admissibility.
  2. 2 Whether the late filing of the certificate, after pre-trial directions and without leave of court, can be excused under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the certificate dated 17th February, 2017, did not meet the mandatory requirements of section 106B(4) of the Evidence Act, as it lacked material particulars such as a description of how the electronic record was produced, particulars of the device, and other required information. The omission was not a mere technicality but a substantive defect. Furthermore, the certificate was filed after pre-trial directions without leave of court, and Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution could not be invoked to cure this non-compliance. Consequently, the certificate and the electronic evidence it sought to authenticate were inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Objection upheld; certificate and electronic evidence inadmissible.

Orders

  • The certificate dated 17th February, 2017 is not admitted in evidence.
  • The electronic evidence sought to be produced with the certificate is inadmissible.