1. As the Respondent’s witness was testifying on 5th May 2026, the Claimant’s Counsel objected to the production of;
a) An audit report, on page 12 of the Respondent’s bundle of documents;
b) Annexture 2.3, computer printout, on page 19 of the Respondent’s bundle of documents;
c) Annexture 2.1, computer printout.
d) Minutes of the disciplinary hearing.
2. Counsel for the Claimant argued that the audit report is signed, but the name of the auditor is not revealed. There is no evidence that the person who signed is accredited by the relevant professional body. Equally, it is not indicated whether the firm under whose name the report is prepared is accredited.
3. As regards the annextures[ the printouts], the Respondent has not tendered in evidence a certificate of electronic evidence, pursuant to the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
4. Counsel for the Respondent argued that, as the report was prepared following the Respondent’s instructions to the Audit firm, it has a legal capacity to produce the report. The report concerns the infractions alleged against the Claimant and is therefore relevant to this matter.
5. The Minutes of the Disciplinary hearing were not served by oversight. Since the fact of the hearing is undisputed, the Minutes can be expunged.
6. I have carefully considered the objection and the respective submissions by Counsel for the parties, and the following directions comment themselves to me;
a) For the wider interest of justice, the Respondent shall call the person who signed the audit report to produce it and be cross-examined on it. For now, the report shall be marked for identification.
b) The minutes are hereby expunged from the record, as admittedly, they were not served on the Claimant. Further, the Claimant has already testified. He would have a chance to testify about them in any manner.
c) The Annexures are documents part of the audit report, not independent. They will remain and be seen as such.
7. Orders accordingly.
Read, Signed and Delivered this 4th June 2026.