Bamboo Twist Limited vs National Lands Commission & Others

4. According to the Applicant, the court was misled into granting the adjournment as the documents relied on were not authentic. The Applicant contends that the conduct undermines the integrity of the court and requires appropriate action. 5. Further, the Applicant contends that the matter has lingered in court for a considerable period and that it has been ready to proceed since 29th July 2026. That the continued delay is prejudicial to the general public particularly because the suit concerns property earmarked from county projects. 6. The Plaintiff therefore urges the court to review the directions issued on 24th March 2026 and for costs occasioned by the adjournment and discharge the hearing date. RESPONDENTS CASE. 7. The Petitioner/Respondent has opposed the application via a Replying Affidavit sworn on 3rd July 2026. He challenges the admissibility of the documents annexed, to wit JW1,2,4,5 and 6 contending that they had been produced in contravention of sections 106A and 106B of the Evidence Act and urges the court to expunge the documents from its record. He further attributed to Mombasa Hospital, stating that the alleged maker Satpal Singh, had not been shown to be a director or shareholder of the Hospital or authorized by the directors or its shareholders to tender evidence on its behalf. 8. He maintains that he was ready and willing to proceed and prosecute the Petition on the dates fixed. 9. The respond avers that on 14th March 2026, prior to the hearing scheduled for 24th March 2026 he informed his advocate that he had attended Mombasa Hospital and referred to India for further examination. He then travelled to India on 15th March 2026 and arrived in Mumbai on 16th March 2026. 10. According to the Respondent, he underwent a series of medical tests between 21st and 24th March 2026 and remained in India for recuperation and returned to Kenya on 21st April 2026. He maintains that the adjournment sought was genuine, necessitated by medical circumstances. 11. The Respondent urges the court to dismiss the application and contended that the filing of the application would occasion further delay in determination of the petition. 6th APPLICANTS SUBMISSION 12. The 6th Respondent/Applicant submits that pursuant to the Petitioner’s response challenging the probative value of the Hospitals response, it subsequently filed a certificate of 7th July 2026 pursuant to section 106A and 106 B of the evidence Act, thereby addressing the objection. He further submits that the requests for verification had been transmitted both electronically and physically and the physical letter is dated 30th March 2026. 13. According to the Applicant the burden of proving the alleged lack of authority of the person who responded to the Applicants inquiry lay on the petitioner, their argument being that, the Petitioner had not produced any evidence to demonstrate that the person who The Judiciary of Kenya Doc IDENTITY: 681946305857721552723931750 Tracking Number:OO6KTT2026 2/5

page 2 of 7

responded to the inquiry was unauthorized. He relied on the case of Evans Nyakwana v The Judiciary of Kenya Doc IDENTITY: 681946305857721552723931750 Tracking Number:OO6KTT2026 3/5

page 3 of 7

Cleophas Bwana Ongaro [2015] eKLR. The Applicant further submits that the respondent failed to authenticate medical records and contends that the mere presence of a hospital stamp was insufficient, an affidavit from the doctor who allegedly examined him would suffice. 14. Further, the Applicant submits that the documents produced by the petitioner from India did not establish the authenticity of earlier documents relied upon to obtain an adjournment. He contends that some of the names appearing on the medical records referred to a person named Harishbhai Gokh instead of Harji Govind Ruda. He argues therefore that the records do not satisfactorily explain or cure the alleged falsification of the documents dated 13th March 2026. 15. The Applicant argues that the application is not a waste of judicial time, rather it was brought to protect the integrity of the court. Further the Petitioner had previously not been ready to proceed with the matter and the adjournment of 24th March 2026 was at the Petitioners request. PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS SUBMISSIONS 16. The Respondent submits that the burden of proving that the medical records he relied on were falsified lay on the Applicant by virtue of Section 109 of the Evidence Act. He submits that the allegation of forgery or fraud attracts a higher standard of proof. He relies on the case of Ndolo v Ndolo (Civil Appeal No. 128 of 1995) [1996] KECA 209(KLR). The Respondent submit that the Applicant has failed to discharge such burden because it had not produced credible evidence from an authorized representative of Mombasa Hospital. Particularly he contends that no evidence had been adduced to establish that Satpal Sigh was an employee or authorized representative of Mombasa Hospital or had requisite authority to confirm authenticity of hospital records. 17. The Respondents adds that he had placed before court documentary evidence demonstrating that he had travelled to India during the period when the matter was scheduled for hearing on 24th March 2026 and urged the court to find that his reasons for seeking an adjournment were genuine. 18. According to the Respondent the Applicant filed the certificate of electronic evidence on 7th July 2026 after filing the application and without leave of court. He submits that the certificate was a cure to the alleged defect in the electronic evidence that was already placed before court. Consequently, he urges the court to disregard the electronic evidence by the Applicant and dismiss the application in its entirety. He reiterates that he is ready 12th ,13th and 14th October and seeks the costs of the application. Analysis and Determination 19. This court has carefully considered the application and the main issue for determination is whether the application is merited. 20. The jurisdiction of this court for review of orders is provided for under Order 45 Rule 1 The Judiciary of Kenya Doc IDENTITY: 681946305857721552723931750 Tracking Number:OO6KTT2026 4/5

page 4 of 7

(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides as follows:“ The Judiciary of Kenya Doc IDENTITY: 681946305857721552723931750 Tracking Number:OO6KTT2026 5/5

page 5 of 7

1.Application for review of decree or order (1) Any person considering himself aggrieveda.by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or b.by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order without unreasonable delay.” 21. It is this court’s view that the basis of an application for review of an order is on the recovery of new and important matters or evidence which after due diligence, was not within the Applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. Further an application for review may also be made on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason. 22. The Applicants case is that the medical Reports relied on by the Respondent in seeking the adjournment on 24th March 2026 were not genuine, according to it the communication from Mombasa Hospital confirmed that the documents did not emanate from the hospital. The Respondent on the other hand disputes the communication and challenges the authority of the person who made it. He maintains that he genuinely attended Mombasa Hospital and subsequently travelled to India for further treatment. 23. The court is of the view that although the communication from Mombasa Hospital was obtained after the directions of 24th March 2026, their contents and evidential value are disputed. 24. In the case of NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA LIMITED vs NDUNGU NJAU [1997] KECA 389 (KLR) the court stated “A review may be granted whenever the court considers that it is necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court. The error or omission must be self-evident and should not require an elaborate argument to be established.” 25. The Applicant has therefore has therefore not demonstrated any ground upon which the directions of 24th March 2026 may be reviewed. Consequently, the prayer for setting aside cannot be sustained. 26. The Application is consequently dismissed and the hearing dates of 12th October 2026, 13th October 2026 and 14th October 2026 shall remain in place. 27. Costs shall be in the cause 28. Orders accordingly. SIGNED BY/FOR: The Judiciary of Kenya Doc IDENTITY: 681946305857721552723931750 Tracking Number:OO6KTT2026 6/5

page 6 of 7

★ TH E JUDICIAR Y O F KENY A ★ HON. JUSTICE ANTONY O. OMBWAYO Mombasa Environment and Land Court Environment and Land Court Date: 2026-09-24 10:07:20 The Judiciary of Kenya Doc IDENTITY: 681946305857721552723931750 Tracking Number:OO6KTT2026 7/5

page 7 of 7