Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment· [2018] KEELC 1141 (KLR)

Jayesh Autospares Ltd v Kapterit Rapid Company Ltd & 2 others [2018] KEELC 1141 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
30 October 2018
MNMwangi Njoroge
154 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that a witness must tell the truth regardless of who calls them, and disputes about their evidence belong in cross-examination.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short interlocutory ruling delivered by Mwangi Njoroge, Judge, at Kitale on 30 October 2018 in an unnamed land matter. The dispute before the court was procedural: the plaintiff had listed the Land Registrar among his witnesses, whereas the State Counsel had not listed him among the State's witnesses, prompting an objection to the plaintiff proceeding to examine the Land Registrar in chief. The court held that a witness's overriding duty is to give truthful evidence to the court whenever he testifies, regardless of which party called him, and that any party dissatisfied with his testimony may address that through cross-examination rather than by preventing his examination. The court accordingly allowed the plaintiff to proceed with the examination-in-chief of the Land Registrar, but to balance the parties' positions, directed that the State Counsel would thereafter have the first opportunity to examine the witness before any other party cross-examined him. The court further directed that the hearing proceed. No authority was cited, no costs order was made, and neither party was represented ('N/A for the partoes'). The ruling resolves only the order and permissibility of examining this witness; the substantive dispute remains for the ongoing hearing. Given its brevity, no final determination of the suit's claims appears in the judgment, and the outcome is best classified as an interlocutory direction rather than an allowance or dismissal of the suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Right to call and examine a witness listed by the plaintiff even where the State did not list him

Holding

The plaintiff was permitted to examine the Land Registrar in chief

Reasoning

The court reasoned that the Land Registrar's duty is to the court to give truthful evidence whenever testifying, irrespective of which party called him. Dissatisfaction with his testimony is a matter for cross-examination, not for excluding his evidence. Procedural fairness was then balanced by giving the State Counsel the first opportunity to examine him after the plaintiff's examination-in-chief, before other parties cross-examine.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A witness listed by one party must give truthful evidence regardless of who called him, and any dissatisfaction with his evidence is addressed through cross-examination

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiff is allowed to proceed with the examination-in-chief of the Land Registrar
  2. 2.After the examination-in-chief, the State Counsel will have the first opportunity to examine the Land Registrar before any other party cross-examines him
  3. 3.Hearing to proceed
Jurisdiction invoked
Not stated in the judgment (original civil suit jurisdiction over a land matter, matter heard at Kitale)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jayesh Autospares Ltd v Kapterit Rapid Company Ltd & 2 others [2018] KEELC 1141 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/1141/eng@2018-10-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.