Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in judgment· [2024] KEELC 5663 (KLR)

Dodhia v Anmol Limited & another; Director of Physical Planning & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 245 of 2018) [2024] KEELC 5663 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 July 2024
LMLUCY N. MBUGUA
533 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 brief interlocutory ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (Lucy N. Mbugua, J) resolved an objection raised by the plaintiff's counsel at the commencement of a hearing slated for 2 July 2024. Before any witness was called, the plaintiff objected to cross-examination of witnesses by counsel for the Interested Parties, urging the court to instead peruse their documents. The 1st Interested Party left the matter to the court; the 2nd and 3rd Interested Parties indicated they would not cross-examine so long as their documents were considered; counsel for the Defendants opined the Interested Parties should be allowed to cross-examine but could not be forced. The court framed one issue: whether the Interested Parties should be allowed to cross-examine witnesses. Applying Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules on joinder and effective adjudication, and section 144 of the Evidence Act vesting the court with the mandate to regulate the admissibility of evidence, and referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another v Republic & 5 others, the court held that no prejudice would be suffered by the Interested Parties' voluntary decision to refrain from cross-examination, but that no hurdles should be placed in the quest for a just conclusion. The objection was overruled and the Interested Parties were declared at liberty to cross-examine witnesses, though free to refrain of their own volition. No costs order was made. The substance of the suit remained pending for hearing.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether Interested Parties may cross-examine witnesses in a suit

Holding

Interested Parties are at liberty to cross-examine witnesses but may voluntarily refrain; the plaintiff's objection to their cross-examining was overruled

Reasoning

The court found no prejudice would be suffered by the Interested Parties' decision to refrain from cross-examination, as the issues in the suit lie between the main parties, citing the Supreme Court in Muruatetu. However, since Interested Parties had filed pleadings and documents, the court held that effective and complete adjudication under Order 1 rule 10(2) requires that they not be hindered from tendering and challenging evidence. Under section 144 of the Evidence Act, the court regulates admissibility and would allow no hurdles to a just conclusion.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The trial court has the mandate to regulate the admissibility of evidence under section 144 of the Evidence Act
  • An interested party who has filed pleadings retains the liberty to cross-examine witnesses but may elect not to do so

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The objection raised by the plaintiff's counsel was overruled
  2. 2.The Interested Parties are at liberty to cross-examine the witnesses, but may refrain from doing so on their own volition

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 rule 10(2)
  • Evidence Actsection 144

Cases cited (1)

  • Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another v. Republic & 5 others
    Sup. Ct. Pet. 15 & 16 of 2015 (Consolidated); [2016] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil suit jurisdiction; Order 1 rule 10(2) Civil Procedure Rules and section 144 Evidence Act invoked

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Dodhia v Anmol Limited & another; Director of Physical Planning & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 245 of 2018) [2024] KEELC 5663 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5663/eng@2024-07-25

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