Pepo Huru Lifestyle Ltd v Bertoni & another
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out a defendant's affidavit sworn over video from Italy because it lacked the required electronic evidence certificate, killing his stay application.
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 Supporting Affidavit of Guido Bertoni is competent and properly before the Court
- 2.If the affidavit survives that inquiry, whether the circumstances warrant the stay of the proceedings pending determination of the criminal case
Key legal issues
#Competence of the Supporting Affidavit sworn virtually from Italy with a jurat stating Malindi
The affidavit is fatally defective for want of a Section 106B Evidence Act certificate and for the jurat discrepancy; it is struck out.
The deponent admitted being in Peschiera del Garda, Italy, and appearing before the Commissioner for Oaths virtually, yet the jurat records swearing at Malindi. Section 5 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act requires the jurat to state truly the place of swearing. Where virtual commissioning is alleged, the evidentiary basis of the online interaction must be disclosed, and a Section 106B(4) certificate is required for electronically produced records. None was provided; submissions from the Bar cannot supply that evidentiary foundation.
Whether the suit should be stayed pending criminal proceedings against the estate's trustees
Not determined; the application could not survive the striking out of its supporting affidavit.
Because the application was substantially founded on the matters deposed to in the Supporting Affidavit, once that affidavit was struck out the application was left without evidentiary foundation. Any consideration of the stay would be academic. The court left the substantive questions open for a competent future application.
Legal principles established
#- Where an affidavit is commissioned virtually or transmitted electronically, the process must be supported by a certificate under Section 106B of the Evidence Act; absence of such certificate is fatal to the affidavit.
- A commissioner for oaths must state truly in the jurat the place and date the oath is taken; a jurat recording a place where the deponent admittedly was not is a substantive defect.
- Article 159(2)(d) cannot be invoked to validate a process where the law prescribes substantive safeguards for the taking and commissioning of sworn evidence.
Court orders
#- 1.The Supporting Affidavit of Guido Bertoni purportedly sworn on 6th June 2026 is hereby struck out
- 2.The Notice of Motion dated 6th June 2026, consequently being unsupported by a competent affidavit, is hereby struck out
- 3.The application dated 6th June 2026 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff/Respondent
- 4.The present suit shall be mentioned on 22/10/26 for directions
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction; application under Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Stay of hearing and determination of the suit, including the counterclaim, pending the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. E540 of 2025 (Kilifi)
The application was struck out for want of a competent supporting affidavit; the merits of the stay were not determined
Costs
The application dated 6th June 2026 is dismissed with 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.
I therefore find that the Supporting Affidavit of Guido Bertoni dated 6th June 2026 is fatally defective for want of the certificate contemplated under Section 106B of the Evidence Act in circumstances where its deponent admittedly appeared before the Commissioner for Oaths virtually from Italy.
The statutory certificate is therefore not ornamental. It supplies the evidentiary foundation upon which the Court may accept an electronically transmitted, executed and returned document as authentic.
That provision, however, cannot be invoked to validate a process where the law prescribes substantive safeguards attending the taking and commissioning of sworn evidence.
The Supporting Affidavit of Guido Bertoni purportedly sworn on 6th June 2026 is hereby struck out;
The Notice of Motion dated 6th June 2026, consequently being unsupported by a competent affidavit, is hereby struck out;
The application dated 6th June 2026 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff/Respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#Order (c) 'dismissed with costs' appears alongside order (b) striking out the same application, creating duplication of disposition on one motion.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Pepo Huru Lifestyle Ltd v Bertoni & another", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Case E001A of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6140/eng@2026-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.