Fanikiwa Ltd v Sirikwa Squatters Group & 95 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 45 of 2017) [2021] KECA 307 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal allowed banks and other late-joined parties to present extra documents in an ongoing land appeal because they never had a chance to testify earlier.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicants, who were not parties in the trial court but were joined at the appellate stage, should be granted leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal under Rule 29 of the Court Rules
- 2.Whether the applicants met the threshold laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohammed Abdi Mahamud for admission of additional evidence in appellate courts
Key legal issues
#Whether newly joined appellate-stage parties may adduce additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Yes. Where parties were joined at the appellate stage as persons likely to be affected by the outcome, and had no opportunity to present evidence at trial, an exceptional situation exists justifying admission of their additional evidence.
The court applied the Supreme Court's Mohammed Abdi Mahamud guidelines. The applicants were not parties in the trial court and so could not have produced the evidence then; the evidence (titles and charges) is directly relevant to the cancelled suit properties and will assist the just determination of the appeal. The documentary evidence can be adduced by affidavit, and the objecting 1st respondent suffers no prejudice since it will have an opportunity to respond by replying affidavit.
Legal principles established
#- Persons who were not parties at trial but are joined at the appellate stage constitute an exceptional situation justifying leave to adduce additional evidence, since they had no opportunity to present that evidence at trial.
- The discretion to admit additional evidence on appeal under Rule 29 can only be exercised in exceptional circumstances, applying the Mohammed Abdi Mahamud threshold.
Court orders
#- 1.The applications for leave to adduce additional evidence are allowed
- 2.Each applicant to file their respective affidavits bringing in the additional evidence within 15 days from the date of the ruling
- 3.The 1st respondent at liberty to file a replying affidavit within 15 days from the date of service of the applicants' affidavits
- 4.Costs of the applications to be in the appeals
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under Rule 29 of the Court of Appeal Rules (additional evidence on appeal); appeals from the Environment and Land Court
- Consolidated with
- Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2017, Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2017
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
We find that the circumstances before us present an exceptional situation in which persons who were not parties in the trial have been joined at the appellate stage and need to adduce evidence to substantiate their alleged interest.
We allow the applications and direct that the applicants shall each file their respective afidavits bringing in the additional evidence within 15 days from the date hereof, and the 1st respondent shall be at liberty to file a replying afidavit within 15 days from the date of service of the applicants' afidavits. Costs of the applications shall be in the appeals.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Claassen v Commissioner of Lands & 6 others (Environment and Land Petition 7 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 5287 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 5287 (KLR)9 Jul 2025
- SKN v MKN & another (Environment and Land Appeal E056 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 4185 (KLR)[2024] KEELC 4185 (KLR)8 May 2024applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Fanikiwa Ltd v Sirikwa Squatters Group & 95 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 45 of 2017) [2021] KECA 307 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2017 (lead file; consolidated with Civil Appeals Nos. 44 of 2017 and 68 of 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/307/eng@2021-12-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.