MWN (Suing as the Guardian Ad Litem of GWN, a Person Suffering from Mental Infirmity) v RWN alias RWM (Civil Appeal (Application) E138 of 2022) [2025] KECA 1985 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal let an elderly woman's guardian add new evidence to a land appeal, and froze the disputed property to protect it meanwhile.
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 applicant should be granted leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal
- 2.Whether leave should be granted to amend the memorandum of appeal and file an amended/supplementary record of appeal
- 3.Whether a stay of execution of the judgment of Angima, J. should issue
Key legal issues
#Whether additional evidence should be admitted on appeal given the appellant's mental infirmity
Yes; the Ladd v Marshall criteria were satisfied because the evidence could not reasonably have been obtained at trial due to the appellant's incapacity, was relevant, and would cause no prejudice.
The Court held that the consent appointing GWN's guardian ad litem confirmed her mental infirmity and incapacity to manage her affairs. The guardian only became aware of the proceedings upon eviction, a fact not refuted. The new evidence was directly relevant, and the respondent was at liberty to respond. The Court balanced the significance of the evidence against expedition and prejudice, concluding the interests of justice favoured admission.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court will receive additional evidence only if it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence, would probably have an important influence on the result, and is apparently credible.
- Additional evidence on appeal is considered case by case, sparingly and with extreme caution.
- Judicial discretion must be exercised to serve substantial justice, guided by law and not arbitrarily.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant to file and serve a supplementary record of appeal introducing the additional documentary evidence within 14 days of the ruling
- 2.The respondent at liberty to reply to the documents within 14 days of service
- 3.The property shall not be transferred to third parties and the status quo obtaining as at 19th November 2025 shall be maintained
- 4.The costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court, Nyahururu
- ELC No. 62 of 2018 (OS)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 31(2), 33, 44 & 46 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Relief refused
#Leave to amend the memorandum of appeal
Not properly before a full bench of the Court under the Rules
Costs
The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
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.
this Court would only consider additional evidence on a case-by-case basis and, even then, sparingly and with extreme caution.
The applicant shall file and serve a supplementary record of appeal introducing the additional documentary evidence within 14 days of this ruling. The respondent is at liberty to reply to the documents within 14 days of service.
Since the eviction has already taken place, we direct that the property shall not be transferred to third parties and the status quo obtaining as at 19th November 2025 shall be maintained.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the trial court delivered judgment on 22nd May 2022 in paragraph 3, but the application narrative refers to 'the Judgment rendered by Angima, J. on 5th May 2022'.
The respondent's replying affidavit is described as sworn on '9th October 2022', which predates the application of 18th September 2025 and is likely a typographical error for 2025.
The respondent's name is never stated in the judgment text provided; only the applicant (MWN/GWN) is named.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "MWN (Suing as the Guardian Ad Litem of GWN, a Person Suffering from Mental Infirmity) v RWN alias RWM (Civil Appeal (Application) E138 of 2022) [2025] KECA 1985 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Application (Nyahururu ELC Appeal No. 62 of 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1985/eng@2025-11-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.