Omicron Holdings Limited v Attorney General & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 1191 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 615 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to let a landowner recall its witness to produce a title document obtained only after the case had started.
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's witness (PW1) should be recalled to produce additional evidence
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff's witness should be recalled to produce additional evidence (Certificate of Lease, lease document and official search)
Application dismissed; the Plaintiff failed to meet the criteria for recalling its witness, the documents having been procured during the pendency of the suit to cover gaps in its case.
Recall of a witness is discretionary under Order 18 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 146 of the Evidence Act. PW1 had testified on 19th February 2025 that a Certificate of title existed when in fact none had been processed. The Plaintiff then obtained the Certificate of Lease during the pendency of the suit, offending lis pendens, and gave no plausible reason for not processing it before filing suit in 2016. Allowing recall would amount to stealing a match on the Defendants and would be prejudicial.
Legal principles established
#- A party who procures title documents during the pendency of litigation, after its witness has testified, offends the doctrine of lis pendens and will not be permitted to recall a witness to produce them
Court orders
#- 1.Notice of Motion dated 15th July 2025 dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 18 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 146 of the Evidence Act
Relief refused
#Recall of PW1 Joseph Njunge Mukuriae to produce the official search, certificate of lease and lease document for Nairobi/Block 180/609
The Certificate of Lease was procured during the pendency of the suit after PW1 had testified, offending lis pendens and amounting to an attempt to fill gaps in the Plaintiff's case
Costs
Application dismissed with costs
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.
In the foregoing, I find the Notice of Motion dated the 15th July 2025 unmerited and will proceed to dismiss it with costs.
by the Plaintifi processing the title to the suit land during the pendency of this suit, it ofiends the doctrine of lis pendens which bars parties from transferring or dealing with immovable property that is currently subject to active litigation
it will be prejudicial to the Defendants if the Plaintifi was allowed to recall PW1 and produce the Certificate of Lease to the suit property, which was procured after PW1 had testified. I opine that it will amount to stealing a match against the Defendants.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omicron Holdings Limited v Attorney General & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 1191 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 615 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/615/eng@2026-02-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.