1. Before this Honourable court for determination is a Notice of Motion dated 14.04.2026 which is similar to the Notice of Motion in ELCC No. 002 of 2026 dated 14.04.2026. Taking note of the similarity; having similar parties and similar grounds of contention, this Honourable Court has determined that the Orders given in ELCC No. E001 of 2026 shall apply to ELCC No. E002 of 2026.
2. The Applicants herein filed the Notice of Motion seeking the following orders:
a) That the Honourable Court do issue an order compelling the Plaintiff to deposit the Original Sale Agreement dated 05.02.2019 in court.
b) That upon the Court granting order number 2a above, the said agreement be forwarded to the Secretary National Registration Services or any other person acting in that capacity to verify whose fingerprints were used to execute the said document.
c) That the costs be in the cause.
3. The application is supported by the affidavit sworn by JOHN KISIOL MAMPULI, the Applicant/1st Defendant herein on 14.04.2026. The Applicant deponed on the following grounds;
a) That the Plaintiff commenced the suit on the strengths of a disputed agreement dated 05.02.2019.
b) That among other marks, there are imprints allegedly affixed on the agreement.
c) That the imprints have been placed suspiciously as to be deemed to belong to SENTO NOGIKIPEWU LETEE of ID NO. 23844705.
d) That it would be proper if the Secretary National Registration Services verifies whose finger the prints belong to.
e) That the orders sought are to unveil the authenticity of the impugned document.
f) That for the interest of justice it is best that the authenticity of the impugned document be verified once and for all.
4. The Respondents responded to the Notice of Motion by filing a Replying Affidavit dated 20.05/2025 deponing that;
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE
5. The Respondent did not file submissions.
6. The Respondent’s response to the Submissions filed by the Applicants is by way of a Replying Affidavit dated 20.05.2026.
7. The Respondent depones that he purchased the suit property from the Applicants herein vide an Agreement dated 05.02.2019 which was properly executed before Advocate Anyoka & Associates Advocates. As such, the Advocate who witnessed the execution of the Agreement be summoned to produce the original copy of the Sale Agreement for the suit property which is in the possession of the Law firm.
8. The Respondent claims that this Application is incurably defective, founded on the wrong provisions of the law, without merit, and an attempt to persuade the court to assist the Applicants gather evidence in support of their case.
APPLICANTS’/DEFENDANTS SUBMISSIONS
9. The Applicants/Defendants submissions rely on the law governing interlocutory applications as set out in Giella V. Cassman Brown 7 Co. LTD (1973) EA 358 at pg 360.
10. The Applicants contend that the agreement upon which the suit is based is questionable.
11. The Applicants’ submissions submit that this application has been brought in the interest of justice and the court has power to grant it leaning on Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act.
Analysis and Determination
12. Arising from the application, the court frames the following as issues for determination
(i) Whether or not the application is merited.
(ii) Who bears the costs of the application.
Analysis and Determination
13. The Applicant seeks orders that the Agreement for sale dated 05.02.2019 be deposited in court, and for it to be sent to the Secretary National Registration Services for verification of the fingerprints, the grounds are that the sale Agreement dated 05.02.2019 is disputed and the 2nd defendant disputes her fingerprints on the said Agreement, and that the fingerprints can only be verified for a Government Agency.
14. In opposition the Respondent deponed that the original Agreement for sale is in possession of the Advocate who drew the same, and that the court should not assist the Applicant to gather evidence.
15. Although the Applicant placed reliance on Giella Vs. Cassman Brown and Co. LTD (1973) decision, the said decision has no relevance whatsoever in this application.
16. The Disputed Agreement for sale is said to have been drawn by an Advocate who also witnessed the same. The said Advocate is not listed as a witness for any of the parties.
17. Either party is at liberty to call the said Advocate as its witness, the request for verification of the fingerprints on the said Agreement for sale and the authentication of the said fingerprints is certainly beyond the scope of the knowledge of the said Advocate who testified, and since it is the said fingerprints that are disputed, it is in order that the said fingerprints be verified, so as to bring the issues in dispute to the fore.
18. The court thus allows the application in terms that; -
(i) The plaintiff and/or his Advocate shall within 14 days from today, obtain the Original Agreement for sale dated 5th of February 2019 and sent the same for verification of the fingerprints of Sento Nogiki Pewu Letee to the Director of National Registration services, and copy tot eh Defendants Advocate the forwarding letter thereto.
(ii) The Defendant’s Advocate shall bear the costs of the verification exercise at the National Registrational Registration Services.
(iii) The Report from the National Registration Services shall be shared to both the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s Advocates.
(iv) The orders issued herein shall apply Mutatis Mutandis to Kilgoris ELC No. E002/2026.
(v) Costs of the application shall be borne by the Applicant.
Dated at Kilgoris this 23rd day of July, 2026
Hon. M.N. Mwanyale
Judge
In the presence of
CA – Sylvia/Gilbert
Mr. Gatonye for Defendant/Applicant
Ms. Chepkirui for Plaintiff/Respondent
| Page 1 | 1 |