Kimani v Equity Group Holding Ltd & another (Environment and Land Case E211 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3603 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan High Court allowed a plaintiff to reopen his case and add fresh evidence, holding that justice favours deciding cases on their merits.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Applicant is entitled to the orders sought, namely the reopening of the Plaintiff's case, leave to file a further list of witnesses and documents, and leave to call an additional witness
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff should be permitted to reopen his case and adduce additional evidence and an additional witness
The application was allowed. The evidence (an Equity Building Society passbook, payment receipts and a forensic document examination report) was directly relevant and material, not voluminous, and the Defendants had not yet opened their case, so any prejudice could be mitigated by cross-examination and supplementary evidence.
The court adopted the Supreme Court's principles in Attorney General v Zinj Limited on additional evidence, noting the documents were directly relevant to whether the Plaintiff obtained and repaid a loan from Equity Building Society. The application was made before the close of the Plaintiff's case and the Defendants had not commenced prosecuting theirs, attenuating prejudice. Article 159(2)(b) and the overriding objective under Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act favoured deciding the matter on its merits rather than penalising the Plaintiff for his advocate's inadvertent omission.
Legal principles established
#- Where the opposing party has not yet closed its case, the prejudice arising from the late introduction of evidence is considerably attenuated because the opposing party retains a full opportunity to respond
- In the exercise of discretion under Article 159(2)(b) and the overriding objective, the interests of justice favour determining a matter on its merits rather than shutting out evidence on account of an advocate's oversight
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's case is hereby reopened
- 2.The Plaintiff is granted leave to file and serve a further list of witnesses and list and Bundle of Documents annexed to the application within seven (7) days from the date of the order
- 3.The Defendants are granted fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the said documents to file any response thereto, including any additional witness statements and documents they may wish to rely upon
- 4.The Plaintiff is granted leave to call Emmanuel Kenga to produce and testify on the forensic document examination report dated 30th August 2025
- 5.The Defendants shall have the right to cross-examine the said witness upon his testimony
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 11, Order 18 Rule 10 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya
Relief refused
#Costs be in the Cause
The final orders do not make any express order on costs despite the prayer in the application
Costs
No express costs order made in the final orders; the Plaintiff had sought that 'Costs be in the Cause'
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
a. The Plaintifi's case is hereby reopened. The Plaintifi is granted leave to file and serve a further list of witnesses and list and Bundle of Documents annexed to the application within seven (7) days from the date of this order.
c. The Plaintifi is granted leave to call Emmanuel Kenga to produce and testify on the forensic document examination report dated 30th August 2025.
the interests of justice are better served by allowing the Plaintifi to present his case fully, and permitting the court to determine the matter on its merits, rather than shutting out evidence on account of an advocate's oversight.
The documents intended to be introduced are neither voluminous nor so complex that they would cause any dificulties for the Defendants in responding.
Issues in the judgment
#The Plaintiff's submissions are stated to be dated 28th January 2024, which predates the hearing of 23rd September 2025 and the application of 3rd October 2025, suggesting a typographical error in the date.
The judgment does not identify the case number, the court/station, or the parties' names, and no costs order is made in the final orders despite the prayer that 'Costs be in the Cause'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kimani v Equity Group Holding Ltd & another (Environment and Land Case E211 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3603 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3603/eng@2026-06-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.