Uathimo Farm Limited & another v Attorney General & 6 others & 10 others [2021] KEELC 3698 (KLR)

Facts

The 8th Respondent/Applicant seeks to adduce oral evidence in the matter, contending that the Court's previous directions to dispose of the petition by way of written submissions have locked out oral testimony. The 1st Petitioner opposes this, arguing that affidavit evidence is legally admissible and that the Applicant has not demonstrated any special grounds for oral evidence.

Issues

1. Right to a fair hearing and trial
2. Admissibility of oral versus affidavit evidence

Reasoning

The Court of Appeal held that affidavit evidence is legally admissible and occupies the same place as oral evidence. The Court finds no substance in the allegation that failure to accord the Applicant an opportunity to give oral evidence will occasion a miscarriage of justice.

Outcome

Application dismissed

Authorities cited