Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissed· [2019] KEELC 5024 (KLR)

Muchanga Investments Ltd v Habenga Holdings Ltd & 8 others; Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd(Interested Party) [2019] KEELC 5024 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 January 2019
756 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to throw out EACC-recorded statements used in a civil land case, confirming properly gathered evidence stays admissible.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (Obaga J) delivered on 24th January 2019 during further defence hearing in a land suit. Mr Odera, counsel for the 3rd defendant, applied to expunge the 4th to 7th defendants' bundle of documents filed on 10th July 2018, arguing it consisted of EACC investigations and evidence obtained illegally, relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Michael Sistu Mwaura Kamau v Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission & 4 others. The application was opposed by Mr Kamau for the 4th to 7th defendants, who argued the cited decision made no finding on illegally obtained evidence and that Mr Odera had been present when leave to file was granted; Mr Miller for the plaintiff associated himself with that opposition. The court framed a single issue: whether the bundle should be expunged as illegally obtained evidence. Examining the bundle, the court found it mainly comprised statements recorded from 14 individuals before EACC officers between October 2014 and February 2015, when the EACC was fully constituted. The Kamau decision concerned only whether a prosecution report forwarded to the DPP after the EACC commissioners had left office was valid, not the legality of the gathered evidence. The court also noted the matter was civil, not criminal. The application was found misconceived and dismissed with costs to the plaintiff and the 4th to 7th defendants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 4th to 7th defendants' bundle of documents containing EACC investigation statements should be expunged as illegally obtained evidence

Holding

The application was dismissed; the statements were recorded between October 2014 and February 2015 when the EACC was fully constituted, so the evidence cannot be faulted, and the cited Court of Appeal decision made no finding of illegally obtained evidence

Reasoning

The court examined the bundle, noting it comprised statements recorded from 14 individuals before EACC officers between October 2014 and February 2015. The Kamau Court of Appeal decision turned on whether a prosecution report was validly forwarded after EACC commissioners had left office, not on legality of the gathered evidence. Since the statements were recorded while the Commission was properly constituted, the evidence could not be faulted, and the matter being civil rather than criminal, the objection failed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Evidence gathered by EACC while the Commission was properly constituted cannot be faulted merely because of later events concerning the forwarding of a prosecution report; and the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence was considered in a criminal context, not applicable to a civil suit

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 3rd defendant's application to expunge the 4th to 7th defendants' bundle of documents filed on 10th July 2018 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the plaintiff and the 4th to 7th defendants

Authorities

#

Cases cited (1)

  • Michael Sistu Mwaura Kamau Vs Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission & 4 others
    Civil Appeal No.102 of 2016 (2017) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a suit in which an interlocutory application was made

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muchanga Investments Ltd v Habenga Holdings Ltd & 8 others; Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd(Interested Party) [2019] KEELC 5024 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/5024/eng@2019-01-24

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