Republic v National Environment Tribunal;National Environment Management Authority & 4 others (Interested Party) Ex parte Edermann Property Limited [2019] KEELC 1143 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Machakos refused to consider new letters filed after pleadings closed, reinforcing that evidence must exist and be relevant when arguments are made.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a court may receive and consider additional documents after close of pleadings and after an application has been argued
The court declined to consider letters dated 24th and 27th September, 2019 because they did not exist when the pleadings closed and the application was argued
The court held that parties can only rely on documents in their possession when arguing an application and such documents must be relevant to the issues and admissible. The letters of 24th and 27th September, 2019 came into existence after the Ex-parte Applicant filed its Replying Affidavit and after the application of 18th September, 2019 was argued, hence it would be erroneous to rely on them.
Whether letters dated 17th and 18th September, 2019 authored by third parties could be considered in the Ruling on the 2nd Interested Party's application
The court declined to consider the letters since they were neither authored by nor addressed to the Ex-parte Applicant, and their contents relate to other disputes
The letters of 17th September, 2019 (County Government of Machakos) and 18th September, 2019 (MAVWASCO) were addressed to the 2nd Interested Party and not copied to the Ex-parte Applicant. Their contents relate to Machakos ELC No. 104 of 2019 and Machakos Judicial Review No. 48 of 2019, and they do not address the issues in the Notice of Motion dated 18th September, 2019.
Relevance of Section 173 of the Evidence Act to the receipt of additional documents
The court found Section 173 of the Evidence Act irrelevant to the present Application
Counsel for the Ex-parte Applicant relied on Section 173 of the Evidence Act to argue that the court may receive additional documentation after a matter has been heard. The court examined the provision and found no relevancy to the present Application.
Legal principles established
#- Parties can only rely on documents which are in their possession while arguing an application, and such documents must be relevant and admissible
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 11th October, 2019 is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court under the Fair Administrative Actions Act and the Law Reform Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v National Environment Tribunal;National Environment Management Authority & 4 others (Interested Party) Ex parte Edermann Property Limited [2019] KEELC 1143 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Machakos Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion dated 11th October, 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1143/eng@2019-10-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.