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 the excerpt· [2025] KEELC 5049 (KLR)

United Care Limited v Macharia & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 320 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 5049 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 July 2025
COCHRISTINE OCHIENG
1,890 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that uncertified copies of government documents are inadmissible in court—you must obtain certified copies first.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (Christine Ochieng, J) determines an evidentiary objection raised during trial by counsel for the 1st Defendant against the Plaintiff's production of copies of documents listed on 30th September 2019. The objection targeted six items of correspondence from government offices, including letters from the National Land Commission, the Director of Survey and the Ministry of Lands, none authored by or addressed to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff argued that no Notice to Produce was served under section 69 of the Evidence Act, that no objection was raised at pre-trial, and that the 2025 ELC Practice Directions allowed production of secondary evidence. The Defendants countered that the documents were public documents requiring certification under section 80 of the Evidence Act and that the Plaintiff had not brought itself within the section 68 exceptions. The court framed a single issue: whether the Plaintiff could produce uncertified copies of public documents from government offices. Applying sections 67, 68 and 80 of the Evidence Act and relying on re the Estate of Charles Ndegwa Kiragu and Kenya Railways Corporation v Okoiti (SC), the court held that only certified copies of public documents are admissible as secondary evidence and that the ELC Practice Directions of 21st March 2025 cannot supersede the Evidence Act or the Access to Information Act. The objection was found merited and sustained.

Key legal issues

#
01

Admissibility of uncertified copies of public documents held by government offices

Holding

The objection is merited; the Plaintiff may not produce uncertified copies of public documents not authored by or addressed to it

Reasoning

Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act permit secondary evidence only within defined exceptions; for public documents under section 68(1)(e) and (f), only a certified copy under section 80 is admissible. The plaintiff did not bring itself within the exceptions, did not obtain the documents under the Access to Information Act, and the ELC Practice Directions of 2025 cannot override the Evidence Act.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Secondary evidence of a public document may only be given by certified copy, and the ELC Practice Directions cannot supersede the Evidence Act or the Access to Information Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The objection by the Defendants to the production of uncertified copies of public documents is sustained
Jurisdiction invoked
Original trial jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (evidentiary objection during trial)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "United Care Limited v Macharia & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 320 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 5049 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5049/eng@2025-07-08

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