David Sugut & another v Mercela Cheptoo Chuma [2016] KEELC 747 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out late-filed video evidence because it lacked leave, prior service, and the required electronic-evidence certificate.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Admissibility of late-filed and unserved electronic evidence
The further list of exhibits was expunged; the video recording could not be admitted because it was unserved, untested, lacked a Section 106B certificate and would prejudice the plaintiffs whose case was closed.
The Civil Procedure Rules require documents to be filed in advance to give notice to the opponent; late filing requires leave. The video was electronic evidence and under Section 106B of the Evidence Act a certificate is a precondition to admission; none was filed. Allowing it after the plaintiffs closed their case would amount to trial by ambush and prejudice. The court also noted the defendant was building her case after hearing the plaintiffs.
Legal principles established
#- Documents must be filed in advance of hearing; further documents require leave of the court, and electronic evidence requires a certificate under Section 106B of the Evidence Act
Court orders
#- 1.The further list of documents (exhibits including the video recording and document examiner's report) filed by the defendant on 24/2/2016 is expunged from the record
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction (not expressly cited in extract)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "David Sugut & another v Mercela Cheptoo Chuma [2016] KEELC 747 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in extract (ELC suit, Kitale). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/747/eng@2016-06-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.