Radheshyam Transport Limited & another v Corporate Business Centre Limited [2020] KECA 406 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to accept new evidence about events that happened after the original judgment, confirming appeals cannot rely on later developments.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#The principles governing admission of additional evidence under Rule 29(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules
The court adopts the Supreme Court's guidelines in Mohamed Abdi Mahamud as the governing threshold, building on Ladd v Marshall and Elgood v Regina, and applies them to dismiss the application
The court traced the guiding principles from the locus classicus Elgood v Regina (adopting Lord Parker CJ's summary), through Mzee Wanje v Saikwa (Ladd v Marshall principles) to the Supreme Court's crystallised guidelines in Mohamed Abdi Mahamud, which it fully adopted. Applying those principles, the documents sought - correspondence on appointment of an arbitrator - arose after the impugned ruling and after the appeal was filed, so they could not have been produced at trial and do not qualify as additional evidence capable of remedying a miscarriage of justice.
Whether post-judgment correspondence on the arbitration process constitutes admissible additional evidence
No. Evidence of events after the judgment and after filing of the appeal falls outside Rule 29(1)
The applicant sought to introduce letters showing that the respondent's advocates had requested appointment of an arbitrator during the pendency of the appeal, arguing the appeal had been overtaken by events. The court held that the Rule 29(1) jurisdiction is confined to evidence which existed at the time of the impugned judgment but was not placed before the trial court, such that its exclusion occasioned a miscarriage of justice. Post-judgment correspondence of that kind cannot fill that threshold and its admission would not address any miscarriage at first instance.
Legal principles established
#- Additional evidence under Rule 29(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules must be evidence that was in existence at the time of the impugned judgment but was not brought to the attention of the trial court; post-judgment events do not qualify
- The Supreme Court's guidelines in Mohamed Abdi Mahamud govern the admission of additional evidence in appellate courts in Kenya, and such evidence is admitted only exceptionally, sparingly, and on a case-by-case basis
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 1st April 2019 seeking leave to adduce additional evidence is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- HCCC No. 303 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 29(1) and 42 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Ruth Muthoni Iganjo & Another v Gitonga Mwangi Murithi & 6 Others[2026] KEELC 5863 (KLR)24 Sept 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Radheshyam Transport Limited & another v Corporate Business Centre Limited [2020] KECA 406 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Civil Application No. 308 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2020/406/eng@2020-08-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.