Capital International Concierge Services Ltd v Kenya Airports Authority & 3 others (Petition E025 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 8385 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (11 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8385 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) COMMERCIAL AND TAX PETITION E025 OF 2024 MO ADO, J JUNE 11, 2026 BETWEEN CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL CONCIERGE SERVICES LIMITED . APPLICANT AND KENYA AIRPORTS AUTHORITY ............................................. 1ST RESPONDENT CABINET SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROADS & TRANSPORT .... 2ND RESPONDENT THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL .......................................... 3RD RESPONDENT AND ETHICS AND ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION ....... INTERESTED PARTY RULING 1. The 1st Respondent has raised a Preliminary Objection dated 16th April 2026 contending that the supporting affidavit sworn by David M. Mberiah on 13th April 2026 is incompetent and inadmissible for want of proper commissioning. The objection is that the jurat bears only a stamp of the Commissioner for Oaths without a signature. 2. The 1st Respondent relied on Githua v Estate of Kimani & 5 Others [2025] KEELC 910 (KLR) and In re MWO (Minor) [2021] eKLR for the proposition that an affidavit not properly commissioned is incurably defective. 3. I have examined the affidavit in question. The jurat bears the name and stamp of “Abiero Brian Okoth, Advocate & Commissioner for Oaths” together with the signature of the deponent. The complaint by the 1st Respondent concerns the form in which the document appears on the electronic record. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8385/eng@2026-06-11 1
page 1 of 2
4. The authorities relied upon by the 1st Respondent are distinguishable. In Githua v Estate of Kimani & 5 Others (supra), the court found that there was a complete absence of the signature of the commissioner's officer, rendering the commissioning doubtful. Likewise, in In re MWO (Minor), the affidavit under scrutiny had not been properly commissioned at all. 5. In this case, the affidavit bears the jurat, official stamp, and particulars of a named Commissioner for Oaths together with the execution by the deponent. The objection raised by the 1st Respondent essentially challenges the form and quality of the endorsement appearing on the scanned electronic copy filed in Court. 6. In the present era of e-filing, documents filed in court are ordinarily scanned copies of originals. A scanned signature or stamp, without more, is not proof that the affidavit was never commissioned. No evidence has been placed before the Court to show that the affidavit was not sworn before the Commissioner for Oaths named therein or that the document is fraudulent. 7. Accordingly, I do not find the defect, if any, to be fatal. 8. The Preliminary Objection dated 16th April 2026 is therefore dismissed. Costs shall abide the outcome of the application dated 13th April 2026. 9. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 HON. MR. JUSTICE MOSES ADO JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT In the Presence of: Moses C/A Ombwayo………………for the Petitioner Mulili…………for the 1st Respondent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8385/eng@2026-06-11 2
page 2 of 2