Were & 2 others v Agricultural Development Corporation & another (Environment and Land Case E001 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 8628 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kitale land court allowed plaintiffs to file key documents late, ruling that justice outweighs strict deadlines when the trial hasn't started and opponents can still respond.
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 applicants should be granted leave to file additional documents (police abstract, affidavit of the 2nd applicant, and allotment letter for L.R. No. 11502/1 Kitale Municipality) and have them deemed duly filed and served
- 2.Whether the reasons given for the delay (misplacement of documents) justify the late filing
- 3.Whether the respondents will suffer prejudice if the documents are admitted
Key legal issues
#Leave to file additional documents before trial
Leave granted because pleadings had closed but hearing had not commenced, the documents met the governing principles, and the respondents could cross-examine
The court reviewed Order 11, Order 3 Rule 2 and Order 7 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and Articles 159(2)(d) and 50(1) of the Constitution. It applied the principles on additional evidence, including those in Mohammed Abdi Mohamud, holding that the documents sought were relevant and material. Since the trial had not commenced, the defendants would have an adequate opportunity to cross-examine and rebut, so no real prejudice arose.
Legal principles established
#- Additional documents for use at trial may be allowed before commencement of hearing where they are relevant and the other party can rebut them
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 27/10/2025 is allowed
- 2.The plaintiffs shall file and serve the additional documents within 14 days from the date of the ruling
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 159(2)(d) and 50(1) of the Constitution
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.
The upshot is, the application is allowed. The plaintiffs shall file and serve the additional documents within 14 days from the date hereof.
Substantive justice to the parties requires a court to lean towards allowing additional evidence, especially in a case such as this one, where the trial has not even commenced and where the other party will have adequate opportunity to rebut such additional evidence.
Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires that, before a suit is set down for hearing, parties file their respective documents within certain stipulated timelines. Leave of the Court must be sought and obtained before filing additional documents outside the set timelines.
the primary duty of any court is to always strive towards allowing the parties to present before it all available and relevant documents and other evidence so that justice is seen to have been served.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Were & 2 others v Agricultural Development Corporation & another (Environment and Land Case E001 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 8628 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 27/10/2025 (suit filed 4/1/2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8628/eng@2025-12-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.