AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment text provided· [2021] KEELC 1892 (KLR)
Umeed Ali Eraj & 4 others v Balcon Housing Co. Ltd & 3 others [2021] KEELC 1892 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#Kenyan courts will let witnesses abroad testify by video link if the request is reasonable and the other side loses nothing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi on a Notice of Motion dated 16th June 2021 brought by the plaintiff under Section 60 of the Evidence Act, Sections 13(1) and (2) of the Environment and Land Court Act, Sections 1A, 1B and 81(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the Practice Directions on Electronic Case Management through Video Conferencing. The application sought leave for two of the plaintiff's witnesses, Raana Sheldon (resident in London, United Kingdom) and Rehana Vera Fatima Patel (resident in Australia), to give evidence through video link. The application was supported by the affidavit of Rehana Vera Fatima Patel, a beneficiary of the estate of Yusuf Eraj, sworn on 25th May 2021. The court considered the motion, the supporting and responding affidavits, and the parties' submissions, and framed a single issue: whether the application was merited. Justice L. Komingoi observed that the emergence of Covid-19 in 2020 had enabled courts to innovate in the conduct of business, found the plaintiff's request not unreasonable and the reasons justifiable, and held that no prejudice would be occasioned to the defendants. The court allowed the application in terms of prayers 2 and 3, permitting both witnesses to testify via video link, with costs of the application in the cause.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether the plaintiff's witnesses, resident in the United Kingdom and Australia, may testify through video link
Holding
The application was allowed in terms of prayers 2 and 3; both witnesses may testify via video link.
Reasoning
The court held that the emergence of Covid-19 in 2020 had enabled courts to be innovative in conducting their business. The plaintiff's request was found not unreasonable and the reasons given justifiable. The court was satisfied that no prejudice would be occasioned to the defendants if the plaintiff's witnesses testified via video link, and accordingly allowed the application.
p. 2
Legal principles established
#- Courts may allow witnesses resident abroad to testify via video link where the request is reasonable, the reasons are justifiable, and no prejudice is occasioned to the opposing party.
Court orders
#- 1.The court to take the evidence of the plaintiff's witness RAANA SHELDON through video link
- 2.The court to take the evidence of the plaintiff's witness Rehana Vera Fatima Patel through video link
- 3.Costs of the application to be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 60 Evidence Act (Cap 80); Sections 13(1) and (2) Environment and Land Court Act (No 19 of 2011); Sections 1A, 1B and 81(3) Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21); Practice Directions on Electronic Case Management through Video Conferencing, Rule 6(2), Gazette Notice No 2357
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Umeed Ali Eraj & 4 others v Balcon Housing Co. Ltd & 3 others [2021] KEELC 1892 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1892/eng@2021-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.