United Care Limited v Macharia & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 320 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 5049 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that uncertified copies of government documents are inadmissible in court—you must obtain certified copies first.
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 Plaintiff can produce uncertified copies of public documents emanating from government offices
Key legal issues
#Admissibility of uncertified copies of public documents held by government offices
The objection is merited; the Plaintiff may not produce uncertified copies of public documents not authored by or addressed to it
Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act permit secondary evidence only within defined exceptions; for public documents under section 68(1)(e) and (f), only a certified copy under section 80 is admissible. The plaintiff did not bring itself within the exceptions, did not obtain the documents under the Access to Information Act, and the ELC Practice Directions of 2025 cannot override the Evidence Act.
Legal principles established
#- Secondary evidence of a public document may only be given by certified copy, and the ELC Practice Directions cannot supersede the Evidence Act or the Access to Information Act
Court orders
#- 1.The objection by the Defendants to the production of uncertified copies of public documents is sustained
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original trial jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (evidentiary objection during trial)
Relief refused
#Plaintiff's request to produce secondary/uncertified copies of public documents
Documents are uncertified copies of public documents neither addressed to nor copied to the Plaintiff; must be obtained and certified per the Evidence Act and Access to Information Act
Costs
No costs order stated
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.
Based on the facts before me while relying on the legal provisions cited above and associating myself with the decisions quoted, I opine that since the documents sought to be produced are uncertified copies of public documents, which were neither addressed to the Plaintifi nor copied to it, the Plaintifi should adhere to the provisions set out in the Access to Information Act and Evidence Act before doing so.
In the foregoing, I find the Objection merited and will sustain it.
Issues in the judgment
#Second defendant's counsel argued Joash Oindo was a former NLC employee but the judgment does not resolve this point separately
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "United Care Limited v Macharia & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 320 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 5049 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5049/eng@2025-07-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.