Mangi & 6 others v Noor (Environment and Land Case E003 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3434 (KLR)

The court noted that the 23/4/2026 directions required filing within 7 days and the defendant filed on 8th May 2026. However, the court found no provision expressly barring interlocutory applications at any stage. The 7-day stricture did not override the defendant's right to file; the court looked to the applicant's intent rather than the procedural technicality, and since a replying affidavit was on file, the merits could be fairly considered without striking out the application.

Relying on the Supreme Court's Salat decision, the court observed that documents filed out of time without leave are nullities; the applicant's decision to first seek leave was commendable. The documents (decree in ELC No 286 of 2016, bailiff report, surveyor's report and Google Earth maps) relate to the suit property and were obtained before the hearing, so plaintiffs would have an opportunity to respond. Any prejudice could be compensated by costs, consistent with Article 159(2)(d).

The plaintiffs argued, citing Republic v Mark Lloyd Stevenson, that Google Earth images are inadmissible electronic evidence under Section 106B of the Evidence Act absent a certificate. The court held there is a difference between allowing documents to be filed and ruling them proved and admissible; the plaintiffs may raise admissibility objections at the hearing. Proof of the Google Earth data lies on the defendant alone, and the decree is a public record to be proved in the usual manner.