Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELCPET/3/2020

Bamboo Twist Limited vs National Lands Commission & Others

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
24 September 2026
AOAntony O. Ombwayo
1,772 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to cancel orders summoning a company's director and lawyer for cross-examination over disputed medical records, keeping the October 2026 hearing dates intact.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 6th Respondent, Bamboo Twist Limited, applied in the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa for review and/or setting aside of directions issued on 24th March 2026 summoning the Petitioner's director, Mr. Harji Govind Ruda, and the Petitioner's advocate for cross-examination on medical reports used to obtain an adjournment, and for contempt if falsified medical records were established. The Applicant also sought discharge of the hearing date of 12th October 2026, an earlier date, and costs. It alleged the medical report and receipts dated 13th March 2026 were not authentic, Mombasa Hospital having denied issuing them. The Petitioner opposed, contending the adjournment was genuinely necessitated by illness and travel to India, challenging the admissibility of the Applicant's documents under sections 106A and 106B of the Evidence Act, and asserting the Applicant bore the burden of proving falsification to a higher standard, relying on Ndolo v Ndolo. The Applicant relied on Evans Nyakwana v Cleophas Bwana Ongaro on burden of proof and filed a certificate under section 106A and 106B. The court framed one issue: whether the application was merited. Applying Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau, it held that although the hospital communications were obtained after the directions, their contents and evidential value were disputed, and no ground for review was demonstrated. The application was dismissed, the hearing dates of 12th, 13th and 14th October 2026 were retained, and costs were ordered in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 6th Respondent demonstrated grounds for review of the directions of 24th March 2026

Holding

The application for review failed because the alleged new matter (the Mombasa Hospital communications) is disputed in contents and evidential value and no error apparent on the face of the record was shown

Reasoning

The court restated the Order 45 Rule 1(1) grounds for review. Although the hospital communications were obtained after the directions of 24th March 2026, their contents and evidential value are disputed by the Respondent, who challenges the authority of the person who made them. The Applicant therefore failed to demonstrate any ground upon which the directions could be reviewed, and the prayer for setting aside could not be sustained.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Review of an order lies on discovery of new and important matter or evidence not within the applicant's knowledge despite due diligence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason
  • A review may be granted to correct an apparent error or omission that is self-evident and requires no elaborate argument

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is dismissed
  2. 2.The hearing dates of 12th October 2026, 13th October 2026 and 14th October 2026 shall remain in place
  3. 3.Costs shall be in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Bamboo Twist Limited vs National Lands Commission & Others", Case Analysis (2026). ELCPET/3/2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5813/eng@2026-09-24

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