Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowednot_stated_in_extract

Simandi Investments Limited v Macharia & 2 others; Bwomanwa, Chairman, National Land Commission & another (Intended Contemnors) (Environment and Land Case 1035 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 460 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
27 January 2026
MKMOHAMMED N. KULLOW
400 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short interlocutory ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi, delivered virtually by Mohammed N. Kullow, Judge, on 27 January 2026. The court determined an oral application by the plaintiff seeking admission of a sale agreement into evidence, to which the defendants objected. The judge took into account Section 35 of the Evidence Act, which governs the admissibility of documentary evidence as to facts in issue in civil proceedings, setting out the conditions that the maker of the statement must have had personal knowledge of the matters dealt with, or have recorded information supplied by a person with such knowledge, and that the maker be called as a witness, subject to exceptions where attendance cannot reasonably be procured. Applying that provision, the court held that it would be in the interest of justice to admit the sale agreement. It further reasoned that the admission would not prejudice the defendants, who would be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine any parties seeking to rely on the document. The court accordingly allowed the document on record and ordered accordingly. The ruling does not determine the substantive suit, and no costs order was made. Counsel appearing were Mr. Arundah for the plaintiff and Mr. Brian Okoth (and Mr. Okoth for Odoro) for the 1st and 2nd defendants respectively, with Philomena W. as court assistant.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the sale agreement sought to be produced by the plaintiff should be admitted into evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act

Key legal issues

#
01

Admissibility of a sale agreement as documentary evidence in civil proceedings

Holding

The sale agreement was admitted on record in the interest of justice under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.

Reasoning

The court considered Section 35 of the Evidence Act, which admits statements in documents tending to establish a fact in issue where the maker had personal knowledge or recorded information supplied by a person with personal knowledge, and is called as a witness or falls within the proviso. Balancing this with fairness, the judge found the defendants would suffer no prejudice since they could cross-examine any party relying on the document.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A document may be admitted where its admission serves the interest of justice, with the opposing party retaining the right to cross-examine those relying on it.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The sale agreement is admitted on record
  2. 2.It is so ordered

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

MK
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction; ruling on admissibility of documentary evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act

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.

Basing my reasoning on the above section, I find that it will be in the interest of Justice to allow the admission of the said sale agreement.
p. 2admissibility of documentary evidence
I hold the view that the admission of the document will not prejudice the Defendants as they will be afiorded an opportunity to cross examine any parties that seek to rely on the same.
p. 2absence of prejudice and right of cross-examination
The upshot of the foregoing is that the document is allowed on record. It is so ordered.
p. 2final orders

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Case number, neutral citation and full case title are not stated in the extract provided.

minor

The extract is a short ruling on admissibility of a document, not a full first-instance judgment determining the suit.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Simandi Investments Limited v Macharia & 2 others; Bwomanwa, Chairman, National Land Commission & another (Intended Contemnors) (Environment and Land Case 1035 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 460 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). not_stated_in_extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/460/eng@2026-01-27

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.