SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Rashid Juma Bedzimba v Ali Menza Mbogo & 2 others [2017] KEHC 1731 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 1731 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1731
Citation
[2017] KEHC 1731 (KLR)
Decided
6 December 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeElection PetitionPosturePetitioner seeks to produce exhibits marked AO2 and AO3 (printed out pictures and a CD-DVD-R respectively) by PW11-OMAR ABDALLAHCoramMr. Ndegwa, Mr. Khagram, Mr. Abed
Holding

The court accepts the objection and does not allow the production of exhibits AO2 and AO3 as they are not anchored in the Further Affidavit.

Facts

The Petitioner filed a certificate under Section 106B of the Evidence Act on 10th October, 2017, and subsequently filed a Further Affidavit on 30th November, 2017 to anchor the certificate. The Respondents objected to the production of the exhibits AO2 and AO3 as they were not anchored in the Further Affidavit.

Issues

  1. Whether the exhibits AO2 and AO3 are admissible in evidence

Reasoning

The court ruled that the Further Affidavit did not anchor the exhibits AO2 and AO3, and thus did not comply with Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declaration Rules. The court also noted that the Further Affidavit did not include the certificate under Section 106B of the Evidence Act as an annexure.

Outcome

The court did not allow the production of exhibits AO2 and AO3.

Orders

  • The court did not allow the production of exhibits AO2 and AO3

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Evidence Act
  • Oaths and Statutory Declaration Rules
Cases cited (1)
  • County Assembly of Kisumu & 2 others versus Kisumu County Assembly Service Board & 6 others [2015] eKLR
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case