Florence Mueni Mbuvi v Faustina Holdings Limited & another [2021] KEELC 265 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi land court ruled that emails, a Safaricom printout and photographs could be used as evidence because they were relevant and authentic.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Admissibility of email correspondences as electronic evidence
The emails and the certificate thereto satisfied the conditions in Section 106B of the Evidence Act and were admissible
The court applied the Court of Appeal decision in County Assembly of Kisumu, holding the section 106B conditions mandatory, but noting the certificate's format is unrestricted. The certificate made by Vincent M. Muia described the computer and storage from which the emails were downloaded, satisfying the statutory conditions.
Admissibility of the Safaricom print out
Admitted; the print out bore a Safaricom stamp and its authenticity was not challenged
Though Matu Mburu required verification by Safaricom, this print out bore a Safaricom Moi Avenue Retail Shop stamp, was clearly the Plaintiff's own account, and the Defendant had not challenged its authenticity.
Admissibility of photographs as electronic evidence
Admitted; authenticity was not questioned and the Plaintiff took the photographs herself and could explain how
The court found that since the Plaintiff took the photographs and would explain their provenance in testimony, and the defence had not disputed authenticity, there was no basis to exclude them.
Whether exclusion of the documents would serve the interest of justice
Exclusion would not be in the interest of justice; the documents are important for the just determination of the dispute
Relying on Article 50(4) of the Constitution and the relevancy test in Evangeline Nyegera, the court held that no evidence showed the documents were obtained in violation of any right, and the defence would have an opportunity to cross-examine on veracity and legitimacy.
Legal principles established
#- The certificate required under section 106B(2) of the Evidence Act may take any form, including averments in an affidavit of the recorder
- Relevancy is the test for admission of evidence, and a party should not be barred from adducing relevant evidence, the other party being at liberty to cross-examine on veracity
Court orders
#- 1.The objection raised by defence counsel is overruled
- 2.The emails (items 3-9), the Safaricom print out (item 10) and the photographs (item 14) are admitted as Plaintiff's exhibits
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction; no specific constitutional or statutory provision invoked as basis of jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Florence Mueni Mbuvi v Faustina Holdings Limited & another [2021] KEELC 265 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/265/eng@2021-12-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.