Angule & 2 others v Lungatso & 2 others (Civil Appeal E099 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 3282 (KLR) (5 March 2026) (Ruling)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 3282
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 3282 (KLR)
- Decided
- 5 March 2026
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from a lower court judgmentCoramAC BETT
Holding
The court will not admit the additional evidence as it was not reasonably available during the trial and the applicants have not shown that it would influence the result of the verdict.
Facts
The applicants seek to adduce additional evidence, including photographic, video, and documentary evidence, which they claim was not available during the trial in the lower court.
Issues
- Whether the applicants have met the legal threshold for the admission of additional evidence in this appeal.
- Whether the additional evidence, including documentary evidence and witness statements, could not have been obtained within a reasonable diligence during the lower court trial.
Reasoning
The court adheres to the principle that appeals are to be determined based on the trial court's records and that fresh evidence is only acceptable in exceptional circumstances. The additional evidence sought by the applicants was not reasonably available during the trial and would not influence the result of the verdict.
Outcome
The application is dismissed.
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- The costs of the application are to be provided for.
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Civil Procedure Rules
- Supreme Court Petition No. 2 of 2018 case Mahamud v Mohamad & 3 others
Cases cited (1)
- Supreme Court Petition No. 2 of 2018 case Mahamud v Mohamad & 3 others
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.
Loading judgment…