Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission v Willesden Investments Limited & 7 others [2018] KECA 672 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to let a party add new documents on appeal, confirming appellate courts rarely accept fresh evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether leave should be granted under Rule 29 to introduce new documents as additional evidence in the appeal
The application fails: the documents post-date the impugned ruling, are contested, and are irrelevant to the only question on appeal - whether the Judge properly exercised his discretion in striking out the suit.
The court recapitulated the Ladd v Marshall principles as adopted in Mzee Wanje v Saikwa and the caution that the rule is not for filling gaps or making out a fresh case. The proposed material - NLC correspondence and a consent order - arose after the 27th May 2010 ruling, and the substantive appeal concerns whether the High Court properly exercised discretion in striking out the suit as res judicata, per Mbogo v Shah. Material not 'needful' for that task cannot be admitted.
Legal principles established
#- The power to admit additional evidence on appeal under Rule 29 must be exercised very sparingly and with great caution; it is not a licence to patch up weak points or make out a fresh case on appeal.
- The Ladd v Marshall principles (as adopted in Mzee Wanje v A K Saikwa) govern applications to adduce additional evidence on appeal: the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence, it would probably have an important influence on the result, and it must be apparently credible.
- Additional evidence that came into existence after the decision appealed from, and which does not speak to the question before the appellate court, is inadmissible.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 24th August 2016 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the appellant
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Nairobi Civil Case No. 35 of 2010
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 29 and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules (appeal from superior court exercising original jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission v Willesden Investments Limited & 7 others [2018] KECA 672 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Civil Appeal (Application) No. 325 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/672/eng@2018-04-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.