Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 6241 (KLR)

Malaba (Suing as Administrator of the Estate of Edward Tale Nabangi) v Muganda (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6241 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 September 2025
1,377 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

If you suspect a document in your Kenyan case is forged, report it directly to the police — you don't need a court order first.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, Maurice Wilson Muganda, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 17th June 2025 under Sections 22, 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking orders that the DCI-Kiambu Head Office conduct a forensic document and signature examination of a sale agreement dated 5th October 2010, and that the Respondent's Advocate avail the original agreement for that purpose. The Applicant denied ever executing the agreement, which the Respondent intends to rely on in her claim to suit land, alleging it was spliced from two separate documents and that the signature matched that on minutes of a meeting of 9th March 2019. The Respondent, Catherine Nekesa Malaba, opposed the application in a replying affidavit sworn 30th June 2025, maintaining the agreement was genuine, executed in her presence as witness, that the original remained with the Applicant, and that the court had no power to order a forensic examination in a civil case, the Applicant being free to report any forgery to investigating agencies. The court agreed, holding that the order sought was not contemplated under Section 22 of the Civil Procedure Act; the DCI is an independent institution whose investigations are commenced at the instance of a complaint; and courts, as impartial umpires, cannot assist one party to obtain evidence against another. The Notice of Motion was dismissed with costs on 25th September 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court can, under Sections 22, 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, direct the DCI to conduct a forensic examination of a disputed document

Holding

No. Section 22 contemplates orders on interrogatories, inspection, production, impounding and return of documents, not directing another arm of government to investigate for a civil litigant.

Reasoning

The court held that the order sought was not one ordinarily contemplated under Section 22 of the Civil Procedure Act, which concerns delivery and answering of interrogatories, inspection, production, impounding and return of documents. Directing the DCI — a department of the Kenya Police Service charged with forensic analysis — to investigate for one civil disputant would compromise the court's impartiality. A party who believes a document is forged may simply report to the police and investigations commence at the instance of a complaint.

p. 3
02

Whether the Applicant needed a court order to have the alleged forgery investigated

Holding

No. If the Applicant believes the sale agreement is forged, he may report the matter to investigating agencies without a court order.

Reasoning

The Applicant denied executing the sale agreement and alleged it was spliced from two separate documents. The court held that forgery is a crime reportable to the police, and investigations commence upon a complaint by a complainant. The court, as an impartial umpire, cannot assist one party to gather evidence against the opposing party, and the Respondent conceded the Applicant was at liberty to take documents to any investigating agency without a court order.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A civil court lacks jurisdiction to direct the Directorate of Criminal Investigations to conduct investigations or forensic examinations for a party to a civil dispute; a party alleging forgery may simply report the crime to the police without a court order.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 19th June 2025 is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 22
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B & 3A
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 22, 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (invoked by the Applicant)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Malaba (Suing as Administrator of the Estate of Edward Tale Nabangi) v Muganda (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6241 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6241/eng@2025-09-25

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