[2020] KEHC 3087 (KLR)
The court declined to admit the document because it was not filed in accordance with the prescribed procedure, namely as an annexure to an affidavit, as required by Rule 11(2) of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013. The document was merely...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 3087 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: William Odhiambo Ramogi; Applicant: Asha Mashaka Omar; Applicant: Gerald Lewa Kiti; Applicant: Kenya Transporters Association Limited; Respondent: The Attorney General; Respondent: Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure; Respondent: Kenya Ports Authority; Respondent: Kenya Railways Corporation; Respondent: Kenya Revenue Authority; Respondent: James Macharia, Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure, Housing Development and Public Works; Respondent: Competition Authority of Kenya; Applicant: Muslims for Human Rights; Applicant: Maina Kiai; Applicant: County Government of Mombasa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Constitutional Petition 159 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Application (admissibility of Evidence)
- Outcome
- Application to admit the document declined.
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Fair Trial Rights, Procedure in Constitutional Petitions
- 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
William Odhiambo Ramogi
Applicant
Asha Mashaka Omar
Applicant
Gerald Lewa Kiti
Applicant
Kenya Transporters Association Limited
Applicant
The Attorney General
Respondent
Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure
Respondent
Kenya Ports Authority
Respondent
Kenya Railways Corporation
Respondent
Kenya Revenue Authority
Respondent
James Macharia, Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure, Housing Development and Public Works
Respondent
Competition Authority of Kenya
Respondent
Muslims for Human Rights
Applicant
Maina Kiai
Applicant
County Government of Mombasa
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Application (admissibility of Evidence)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a document can be admitted into evidence in a constitutional petition by merely emailing it to the court and parties without annexing it to an affidavit.
- 2 Whether the late introduction of evidence after the close of the petitioners' and interested parties' cases violates fair trial rights.
- 3 Whether the Attorney General provided sufficient justification for the late filing of the document.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to admit the document because it was not filed in accordance with the prescribed procedure, namely as an annexure to an affidavit, as required by Rule 11(2) of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013. The document was merely emailed to the court and parties, which is substantively unprocedural. Furthermore, the document was introduced after the close of the petitioners' and interested parties' cases, which would have prejudiced their right to a fair trial and necessitated reopening the case. The Attorney General provided no justification for the late filing, despite having had the document for over ten...
Court Disposition
Application to admit the document declined.
Orders
- The application by the Honourable Attorney General to admit as evidence the Statement by Cabinet Secretary in the Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development and Public Works dated 2nd December, 2019 is declined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
44 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 159 OF 2018
WILLIAM ODHIAMBO RAMOGI...............................................................1ST PETITIONER
ASHA MASHAKA OMAR............................................................................2ND PETITIONER
GERALD LEWA KITI....................................................................................3RD PETITIONER
AND
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL....................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
THE CABINET SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT ANDINFRASTRACTURE...................2ND RESPONDENT
KENYA PORTS AUTHORITY.................................................................3RD RESPONDENT
KENYA RAILWAYS CORPORATION....................................................4TH RESPONDENT
AND
MUSLIMS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS..............................................1ST INTERESTED PARTY
MAINA KIAI.................................................................................2ND INTERESTED PARTY
COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF MOMBASA............................3RD INTERESTED PARTY
CONSOLIDATED WITHPETITION NO. 201 OF 2019
KENYA TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION LIMITED...................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
KENYA PORTS AUTHORITY.................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
KENYA REVENUE AUTHORITY...........................................................2ND RESPONDENT
KENYA RAILWAYS CORPORATION...................................................3RD RESPONDENT
JAMES MACHARIA, CABINET SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF TRNSPORT, INFRASTRUCTURE,
HOUSIING DEVELOMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS.........................4TH RESPONDENT
COMPETITION AUTHORITY OF KENYA.........................................5TH RESPONDENT
RULING
1. On the second day of the hearing of the Consolidated Petitions herein, Mr. Nguyo, Counsel for the Honourable Attorney General made an application for the admission of a document which he described as a Statement by Cabinet Secretary in the Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure, Housing, Urban Development and Public Works. The Statement is dated 2nd December, 2019.
2. Mr. Nguyo explained that he had emailed the document to the Court earlier in the morning. Mr. Nguyo did not explain why he had not filed the document in advance given that it is dated 2nd December, 2019.
3. Ms. Nyambura Kihoro, Counsel for the 1st to 3rd Petitioners; Mr. Willis Otieno, Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Interested Parties; Mr. Arnold Oginga, Counsel for the 3rd Interested Party and Mr. Nani Mungai, Counsel for the 3rd and 4th Respondents and Mr. Wafula, Counsel for the 5th Respondent opposed the Application. While Mr. Oginga, Mr. Nani Mungai and Mr. Wafula were categorical in their objection, Ms. Kihoro and Mr. Otieno were somewhat modulated in their objection – indicating that if the document was admitted, the Court would be obliged to give the other parties an opportunity to submit orally on the document.
4. Mr. Gikandi, Counsel for the 4th Respondent did not oppose the application by Mr. Nguyo but indicated that he would be satisfied if he were given an opportunity to comment on the document. Ms. Kagure, Counsel for the 4th Respondent, took no position on the application.
5. We listened to the oral representations by the parties and have considered them. We will not rehash the arguments here.
6. The application to admit the document is declined for the following reasons.
a. First, the mode of introduction of the document is problematic in a substantive sense. The Honourable Attorney General merely emailed the document to the Court and the parties without annexing it to an affidavit. This is substantively un-procedural. Rule 11(2) of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013is quite clear in its prescription on how documents in Constitutional Petitions should be filed. Such documents can only be filed as annextures to filed affidavits or to the Petition where there is no Supporting or Replying Affidavit. As explained below, this is not merely a formal objection; it impacts on the fair trial rights of the other parties to the case.
b. Second, the Honourable Attorney General seeks to introduce the document after the close of the Petitioners’ and Interested Parties’ cases. Admission of this document would be a drastic breach of the right to fair trial for the Petitioners and Interested Parties. To truly balance the equities in the case if the application is granted, the Court would be required to re-open the case and allow the Petitioners and Interested Parties to respond to the new evidence being introduced. This would not only undermine efforts to complete this five-judge bench expeditiously but also introduce a dangerous precedent for parties in future suits.
c. Third, the Honourable Attorney General offered no reason whatsoever why the Court should exercise discretion to allow admission of the document at this very late stage. It is clear that the document was in the possession of the 1st and 2nd Respondents since December, 2019 – more than ten months ago. Directions on the hearing of this Consolidated Petitions were given on August 20, 2020. There is no justifiable reason why the Honourable Attorney General did not file the document in Court before trial had already began. All along the Honourable Attorney General was aware of the hearing dates. Indeed, the Honourable Attorney General filed an Application for Stay of Proceedings in the Consolidated Petitions on 11th September, 2020. He later filed his written submissions in the Consolidated Petitions on 21st September, 2020. There is no explanation why he did not file a formal application for the admission of the document along with these other filings.
7. The upshot is that the application by the Honourable Attorney General to admit as evidence the Statement by Cabinet Secretary in the Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development and Public Works dated 2nd December, 2019 is declined.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Mombasa this 23rd day of September, 2020.
L. ACHODE J. NGUGI P. NYAMWEYA
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
E. OGOLA A. C. MRIMA
JUDGE JUDGE