Kihara (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Alice Nduta Kihara) & another v Patmos Investment Limited & 14 others (Environment and Land Case E159 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2413 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a litigant who lies on oath and declines to purge the perjury should be prosecuted
The Court found the 2nd Plaintiff wilfully lied on oath and initially refused to purge the perjury, but exercised discretion to withhold immediate prosecution, extending conditional mercy
The Court held that the sanctity of the oath underpins adversarial justice and that perjury is not a victimless offence. However, it recognised human fallibility and the 2nd Plaintiff's subsequent contrition expressed through Counsel. Mercy was therefore extended once, on strict conditions requiring correction of the false record at Gatundu, with prosecution to follow automatically on default or any further lie.
Nature and gravity of perjury under Kenyan law
Perjury under section 108 of the Penal Code is punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years; section 109 criminalises wilful false statements on oath
The Court set out the statutory framework, emphasising that these provisions protect the integrity of the justice system rather than oppress litigants. A deliberate departure from truth on oath is a cognisable criminal act that strikes at the foundation of adjudication.
Legal principles established
#- Perjury strikes at the foundation of the judicial system and the administration of justice depends on witnesses telling the truth
- Perjury is not a victimless offence; it deprives parties of justice and corrupts the court record
- Genuine remorse requires correcting the false record at its source, not merely an apology in court
Court orders
#- 1.Finding that the 2nd Plaintiff wilfully lied on oath on 23/02/2026 and that his initial refusal to purge the perjury was a deliberate affront to the administration of justice
- 2.Court declines at this stage to refer the matter for immediate prosecution, as an act of measured judicial grace
- 3.2nd Plaintiff to take all necessary steps within 30 days of the Ruling to correct the false record at the Gatundu Court
- 4.2nd Plaintiff to file an Affidavit within 14 days thereafter confirming the steps taken, exhibiting proof
- 5.Warning that any further lie or misleading of the Court will result in referral for prosecution without further hearing
- 6.Throw away costs of Ksh 50,000 to be paid personally by the 2nd Plaintiff to the Counsels who attended Court on 23/02/2026 before the next hearing
- 7.Matter to revert to normal hearing once all actions are accounted for
- 8.Mention to confirm and take a hearing date on 20/07/2026
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent powers of the High Court/Environment and Land Court over the integrity of court proceedings; not expressly stated in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kihara (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Alice Nduta Kihara) & another v Patmos Investment Limited & 14 others (Environment and Land Case E159 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2413 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2413/eng@2026-04-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.