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 184 of 2017· [2023] KEELC 16973 (KLR)

Muli & another v Nakumama & 3 others

Environment and Land Court
27 April 2023
LKLC Komingoi
585 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This interlocutory ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado (LC Komingoi, J) determined an objection raised by Mr Achilla, counsel for the 1st to 3rd defendants, seeking to prevent Mr Kali, counsel for the 2nd plaintiff, from cross-examining PW1, the 1st plaintiff, after the defendants' cross-examination had concluded. The objection was grounded on the 2nd plaintiff's counsel's statement associating himself with the 1st plaintiff's evidence, and on prejudice to the defendants. Mr Wandaka supported the 2nd plaintiff's right to cross-examine; Mr Kali argued that Mr Musili's sentiments did not waive the 2nd plaintiff's right and invoked her constitutional right to cross-examine. The court examined the record and found that the 2nd plaintiff had, by an authority to act dated July 17, 2012, authorised the 1st plaintiff to represent her and give evidence on her behalf; that despite a direction of March 7, 2017 to regularise her position by filing documents and witness statements, she filed nothing, so only the 1st plaintiff's affidavit was on record; and that after his testimony her counsel associated himself with that evidence. Holding that no known procedure in law enables a co-plaintiff who has filed no separate affidavit to cross-examine a witness who testified on her behalf, and noting that the defendants' counsel had concluded his cross-examination, the court found merit in the objection and upheld it. No costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 2nd plaintiff could cross-examine the 1st plaintiff after associating herself with his evidence

Holding

Objection upheld; the 2nd plaintiff cannot cross-examine the 1st plaintiff as she filed no separate affidavit and had authorised him to give evidence on her behalf

Reasoning

The court reviewed the record: the 2nd plaintiff signed an authority to act in 2012 giving the 1st plaintiff authority to represent her and give evidence on her behalf. She was directed in 2017 to regularise her position by filing documents and witness statements but did not. Only the 1st plaintiff's affidavit is on record. After his testimony, her counsel associated himself with that evidence, and the defendants had concluded their cross-examination. No procedure exists to allow the cross-examination sought.

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who has not filed a separate affidavit or documents cannot cross-examine a co-plaintiff witness who gave evidence on her behalf under an authority to act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Objection by the 1st to 3rd defendants' counsel upheld; the 2nd plaintiff barred from cross-examining PW1 (the 1st plaintiff)
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (interlocutory ruling in ELC 184 of 2017)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muli & another v Nakumama & 3 others", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 184 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/16973/eng@2023-04-27

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