Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherEnvironment & Land Case 187 of 2016· [2023] KEELC 16397 (KLR)

Chelagatt v Nderi & 8 others

Environment and Land Court
16 March 2023
FNFM Njoroge
646 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 ruled that a document cannot be excluded merely because someone claims it is forged, unless police or investigators have actually proved forgery.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This interlocutory ruling by FM Njoroge, J of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru resolves an evidentiary dispute during the hearing of a land case concerning plot No 637. The plaintiff, Loyce Jerop Chelagatt, objected to the production by DW2 of a letter dated December 21, 2015, apparently from the Ministry of Lands and signed by Philip Obonyo for the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement, which on its face supports the 1st defendant's claim to have been allocated the plot by the Settlement Fund Trustees; the 2nd to 8th defendants claim to have purchased it from him. The objection was problematic because the previous morning the plaintiff had produced, as PExh.7A, a letter dated December 18, 2015 from the same office, signed by a different officer, supporting the plaintiff's claim that she purchased the plot in 2013. Counsel Mr Simiyu argued the court could not receive two contradictory letters from the same office, and that PW1 had labelled the letter a forgery, though the alleged denunciation by its author was contained in correspondence never produced in evidence. Ms Omwenyo for the defendants responded that the letter had been copied to the 1st defendant and had been in the plaintiff's counsel's hands for over eight years without any demur or investigation. The court held these were strong grounds for admission: the forgery allegation had never been investigated or proved by the CID or any authorized office. The objection was overruled, the letter admitted as 2DExh.8A, and the hearing ordered to proceed. No costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Admissibility of a document alleged to be a forgery

Holding

The objection was overruled and the letter allowed to be produced as 2DExh.8A; the weight to be attached is a matter for the trial court after full hearing.

Reasoning

The court found two decisive facts: the letter had been copied to the 1st defendant, the seller, making it probable the purchasers (2nd-8th defendants) obtained copies; and the forgery allegation, though the letter had been in the plaintiff's counsel's hands for over eight years, was never investigated or proved by the CID or any authorized office. These were held to be strong grounds for admitting the document, with the objection overruled.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A document alleged to be a forgery is admissible in evidence where the allegation has not been investigated and proved by an authorized office such as the Criminal Investigations Department.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Objection to production of the letter dated December 21, 2015 overruled
  2. 2.DW2 allowed to produce a copy of the said letter as 2DExh.8A
  3. 3.Hearing to proceed
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a land dispute (plot No 637)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chelagatt v Nderi & 8 others", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 187 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/16397/eng@2023-03-16

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