Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOther· [2024] KEELC 5301 (KLR)

Plaintiff v Defendant (ruling on objection to calling Mr. Kibii as witness)

Environment and Land Court
18 July 2024
EOE. O. Obaga
511 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

#

A Kenyan court barred an advocate from testifying about a document his law firm partner authored, ruling the author himself must testify.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory ruling delivered at the further hearing of the Plaintiff's case in a land dispute before the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret (E. O. Obaga, J). The Plaintiff, through Mr. Makokha, had lined up three witnesses but elected to call only Mr. Kibii, an advocate from the firm of R. K. Limo & Co. Advocates, before closing its case. The Defendant, through Mr. Yego, objected, arguing that Mr. Kibii was coming to testify on a document authored by Justice R. K. Limo when he was an advocate, and that the Plaintiff was attempting to reopen the process before the partial mediation settlement, which had settled the issue of contribution; only the value of the property in contention remained. The court reviewed the file and found the document in issue, a memorandum of understanding dated 28.9.2013 allegedly signed in the presence of Robert K. Limo Advocate (now a Judge of the High Court), did not indicate it was drawn by the firm of R. K. Limo & Co. Advocates and was only witnessed by Robert K. Limo Advocate. Since Justice Limo is available and is the proper person to give evidence on a document said to have been drafted by him, no basis existed for Mr. Kibii, a mere partner, to testify on it. The court upheld the objection, noting further that the recorded partial mediation settlement had settled the proportion of contribution, leaving only the value of the property for determination. The ruling was delivered on 18th July 2024 with no costs order.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competency of an advocate-partner to testify on a document authored by another (now a judge)

Holding

Objection upheld; only the author, Justice Limo, could give evidence on the memorandum of understanding

Reasoning

The memorandum of understanding dated 28.9.2013 was witnessed by Robert K. Limo Advocate, now a Judge of the High Court, and did not indicate it was drawn by his firm. Since Justice Limo is available, he is the proper witness. Mr. Kibii, who did not author the document and was merely his partner, had no basis to testify. The court also noted the partial mediation settlement had settled the issue of contribution.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A partner cannot give evidence on a document he did not author where the author is available to testify

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Objection to Mr. Kibii testifying on evidence touching the memorandum of understanding dated 28.9.2013 upheld
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction (suit before the court; no constitutional/statutory provision cited)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Plaintiff v Defendant (ruling on objection to calling Mr. Kibii as witness)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5301/eng@2024-07-18

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