Wainaina Kironyo & 8 others v Naphtali Ngugi Munyaka [2022] KEELC 886 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to admit video evidence because it lacked a proper certificate, showing electronic evidence must strictly follow the Evidence Act's rules.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiffs' proposed electronic and documentary evidence satisfies Sections 78A and 106B of the Evidence Act
The untitled expert report did not constitute a compliant Section 106B(4) certificate; the statutory requirements were not satisfied and the application was rejected
The court set out Sections 78A and 106B of the Evidence Act and tested the exhibited expert report against them. The document was untitled, did not identify any particular electronic record or its source, gave no particulars of any device involved in production, and did not specify the circumstances in which the record was kept. As none of the Section 106B(4) certificate requirements were met, the evidence could not be admitted.
Whether the absence of a compliant certificate could be excused given that hearing had not commenced
No; although ordinarily inclined to allow additional evidence before commencement of hearing, the court held the plaintiffs failed the statutory criteria
The court acknowledged that where hearing has not commenced, a party is ordinarily allowed to present additional evidence. However, the key question was whether the requirements of Section 78A as read with Section 106B of the Evidence Act were satisfied. Because the certificate requirement is mandatory and no compliant certificate existed, the discretion could not be exercised in the plaintiffs' favour.
Legal principles established
#- A compliant certificate under Section 106B of the Evidence Act is a mandatory requirement for the admission of electronic evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 21/1/2021 seeking leave to produce additional evidence in the form of documentation and electronic format is rejected for lack of merit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit; the ruling determines a notice of motion for leave to produce additional evidence
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wainaina Kironyo & 8 others v Naphtali Ngugi Munyaka [2022] KEELC 886 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/886/eng@2022-02-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.