Murage v Katita & another (Environment and Land Case 6 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5736 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed a landowner to replace an outdated valuation report with a fresh one, ruling stale valuations can be updated to fairly assess damages.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a supplementary valuation report may be admitted after the plaintiff's case has closed
Leave was granted because the 2019 valuation was stale and the fresh report was material to the claim for damages for loss of bargain; it did not reopen the case or introduce new facts.
The Court grounded its discretion in the overriding objective under Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act and the inherent power under Section 3A, reinforced by Article 159(2)(d). It reasoned that expert valuation evidence exists to assist the court in fairly assessing damages, and where time has rendered it outdated, an updated report serves substantive justice. The Defendants retained the right to cross-examine the valuer, so no unfair prejudice arose.
Whether the Defendants would suffer prejudice from the updated valuation
No unfair prejudice was demonstrated; any prejudice is remediable by cross-examination of the valuer.
Relying on Trust Bank Limited v Amalo Company Limited, the Court held that evidence enabling a fair and just decision should be allowed provided no party is prejudiced beyond what can fairly be remedied by an opportunity to be heard. The Defendants were given liberty to summon the valuer for cross-examination, which the Court considered a sufficient safeguard.
Legal principles established
#- Where expert valuation evidence on record has become stale due to the passage of time, a supplementary valuation may be allowed in the interest of justice, provided no party suffers prejudice that cannot be remedied by cross-examination.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the Plaintiff to file and serve a current valuation report of Land Parcel Kajiado/Kaputiei North/1220 within sixty (60) days of the ruling
- 2.Upon filing of the updated valuation report, the Defendants shall be at liberty to request the summoning of the valuer for cross-examination on the contents of the report, should they so desire
- 3.The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the main suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Murage v Katita & another (Environment and Land Case 6 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5736 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5736/eng@2025-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.