Teresia Njoki Njoroge (Suing as the legal Representative of the Estate of Daniel Njoroge Kibugi (deceased)) v Anastacia Njoki Karimi (Legal representative of Francis Murage (deceased))
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused a mid-trial request for a fresh forensic examination, ruling that changing lawyers does not reset a case or fix years of delay.
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 Defendant/Applicant has established sufficient grounds for the court to order a fresh independent forensic examination, and exclude the forensic reports 23rd November 2017 and 19th April 2021.
Key legal issues
#Whether a fresh independent forensic examination should be ordered mid-trial
Refused; the Defendant failed to demonstrate due diligence and the orders would occasion delay and permit remedying of deficiencies that should have been addressed before hearing
The alleged conflict was apparent on the face of both reports, which had been in the Defendant's knowledge and possession for years. No explanation was offered for not raising the issue before the expert testified in 2024. A newly instructed advocate cannot reset a part-heard trial, and the orders sought would undermine the overriding objective and the constitutional imperative of expeditious justice.
Whether the two conflicting forensic reports should be excluded or given no weight
Refused; contradictions go to weight, not admissibility, and are matters for the court's final evaluation
The court held that expert evidence is advisory and never binding; its credibility, independence, consistency and weight are to be evaluated by the court alongside the entirety of the trial evidence. Inconsistencies or circumstances surrounding preparation of reports can adequately be addressed in the final evaluation.
Whether the application amounted to introducing additional evidence after commencement of trial
The principles on additional evidence were not satisfied; the Defendant bore a heavy burden of demonstrating due diligence which she did not discharge
Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held that additional evidence should be admitted sparingly, must be directly relevant, could not with reasonable diligence have been obtained during trial, must not fill gaps, and must not occasion prejudice or delay. None of these considerations favoured the Defendant.
Legal principles established
#- A change of advocates does not reset proceedings nor entitle a litigant to revisit strategic or evidentiary decisions previously made during trial
- Contradictory expert opinions do not, without more, render both reports inadmissible; credibility and weight are matters for the court at trial
- Expert evidence is advisory in nature and never binding upon the court
- Additional evidence after commencement of trial is admitted sparingly and only where it could not with reasonable diligence have been obtained earlier and will not occasion prejudice
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 13th April, 2026 is dismissed with costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 3B of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Articles 50(1) and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Order compelling the Plaintiff to produce original or certified copies of the Kenya Power & Lighting Company Supply Agreement dated 30th December 1991 and letter dated 8th February 1992
Application dismissed as unmerited; relief sought at a late stage would occasion delay
Order directing the DCI or an independent government forensic document examiner to conduct a fresh forensic examination of the disputed signature
Defendant failed to demonstrate due diligence; conflict was apparent on the face of the reports years earlier
Order that the DCI file a comprehensive forensic report
Not granted; application dismissed
Exclusion of the two conflicting forensic reports dated 23rd November 2017 and 19th April 2021, or that they be given no or minimal weight
Contradictory expert opinions do not, without more, render both reports inadmissible; issues go to weight not admissibility
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs (costs to the Plaintiff/Respondent).
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.
Accordingly, the court finds the Notice of Motion dated 13th April, 2026 to be unmerited. The same is dismissed with costs.
A change of advocates does not reset proceedings nor entitle a litigant to revisit strategic or evidentiary decisions previously made during the conduct of a trial.
The existence of contradictory expert opinions does not, without more, render both reports inadmissible.
Any inconsistencies, contradictions or circumstances surrounding the preparation of the reports remain matters that go to weight, rather than admissibility
A litigant seeking leave to introduce further evidence bears a heavy burden of demonstrating that, despite exercising due diligence, the evidence could not reasonably have been produced earlier.
Issues in the judgment
#Application dated 2026 in a 2016 suit with expert testimony in 2024; dates appear internally inconsistent
Defendant's name spelled 'ANASTACIA' in caption but 'Annastacia' in affidavit reference
Deceased vendor named 'DANIEL NJOROEGE KIBUGI' in caption but 'Daniel Njoroge' throughout body
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Teresia Njoki Njoroge (Suing as the legal Representative of the Estate of Daniel Njoroge Kibugi (deceased)) v Anastacia Njoki Karimi (Legal representative of Francis Murage (deceased))", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Suit No. 127 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5630/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.