Kamau v Wanyoike & 16 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E741 of 2021) [2025] KECA 493 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed a landowner to introduce a fraud conviction as new evidence in his property appeal, because the conviction happened after the original trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the judgment and ruling on sentence in the criminal proceedings qualify as admissible additional evidence on appeal
The Court found the evidence met the criteria for admission: it is credible (being a court judgment and ruling), straightforward and easy to respond to, and could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at trial since the conviction post-dated the trial court judgment and the review application.
The Court traced the history of attempts to introduce criminal proceedings into the dispute, noting this was at least the third attempt. However, it held that the conviction itself did not exist at the time of the review application, so the usual objection that the evidence was available could not defeat it. The Court declined to make a final assessment of probative value, reserving that to the bench hearing the substantive appeal, but found a nexus between the evidence and the appeal since part of the journey of the respondents' title was found tainted by fraud.
Who should assess the probative value of the admitted evidence
The Court reserved the question of relevance and probative value of the additional evidence to the bench that will hear the substance of the appeal.
The Court noted that the appeal raises the narrow question whether rejection of the review application was correct, not a merits assessment of the trial judgment. It was cautious about concluding finally that the criminal conviction was irrelevant, and left that determination, along with the weight of the evidence, to the appeal bench.
Legal principles established
#- Additional evidence may be admitted on appeal only in exceptional circumstances, on a case-by-case basis, sparingly and with abundant caution, applying the Mahamud principles including direct relevance, likely influence on the verdict, and inability to obtain the evidence with reasonable diligence at trial.
- Where a court admits additional evidence on appeal, the opposing party is entitled to leave to adduce evidence challenging that new evidence.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the appellant to adduce additional evidence, namely the judgment and ruling on sentence in Chief Magistrates Court Criminal Case No. 2586 of 2010, Republic v Edward Samuel Ngugi
- 2.A supplementary record introducing the judgment and ruling on sentence to be filed and served within 14 days
- 3.Leave granted to the respondents to file a further supplementary record limited to responding to the new evidence within 14 days of service
- 4.Costs of the application to be in the appeal
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court, Thika
- ELC Appeal No. E65 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 24, 48, 50(1) and 159 of the Constitution and Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Rule 31 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamau v Wanyoike & 16 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E741 of 2021) [2025] KECA 493 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Application (in pending appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/493/eng@2025-03-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.