Muratha & 17 others v Wambaki & 5 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 1206 of 2015) [2022] KEELC 2459 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed litigants to reopen their case and add further evidence, but made them pay the costs of the application.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiffs' application to reopen their case and adduce further evidence should be allowed
The application was allowed in the interest of justice.
The court considered the notice of motion, the supporting affidavit of Michael Muratha, the replying affidavit of Joseph Kimani Gatheca, and the Plaintiffs' submissions. Applying Order 18 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which permits the court at any stage of the suit to recall a witness, and weighing the rival positions and the circumstances of the case, the court concluded that allowing the reopening served the interest of justice. However, the Plaintiffs were ordered to bear the costs of the application.
Legal principles established
#- The court retains discretion at any stage of a suit to recall a witness or permit further evidence in the interest of justice.
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiffs/Applicants be allowed to reopen their case to call for or provide further evidence in relation to the suit
- 2.Costs of the application to be borne by the Plaintiffs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B(a), 3 and 3A and section 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muratha & 17 others v Wambaki & 5 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 1206 of 2015) [2022] KEELC 2459 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2459/eng@2022-04-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.