PLEASE READ COLLECTLY! Court burst laughing as Dr.Gikonyo makes lawyer Thiankolu look like a fool

追加: 2026-05-13

[00:00:00]Thank you.

[00:00:10]Good morning, Dr. Eddie.

[00:00:11]>> Good morning, sir.

[00:00:12]Uh my name is Muvumbi. I think we know each other. Lovely. Nice to meet you in these circumstances. I will ask you a few questions I will please answer.

[00:00:23]>> of the respondents. Thank you, sir. I'm the second interested party who is the party I represent in this case.

[00:00:33]For the record, please confirm that your affidavit is dated 28th of April the year 2026.

[00:00:45]>> That is correct, your honor.

[00:00:47]You will agree with me, sir, this affidavit has been made 1 and 1/2 years after the events described in it.

[00:00:59]Correct or incorrect?

[00:01:00]Uh correct. It's correct.

[00:01:05]Was this affidavit placed before the Senate?

[00:01:11]I wouldn't be aware because it didn't exist at that time. This request has come now.

[00:01:16]The request has come now. Yes.

[00:01:20]You don't believe sir it is bizarre that a request of this nature in a case of this nature be made 1 and 1/2 years down the line? Would you agree with me that's bizarre? It's not natural.

[00:01:30]Sir, I don't know the proceedings in court of these issues. Fair enough.

[00:01:37]This affidavit has attached some medical records, exhibit three.

[00:01:43]Correct or incorrect?

[00:01:46]Correct.

[00:01:51]That exhibit, was it placed before the Senate?

[00:01:55]I wouldn't be aware, sir.

[00:01:57]You are not aware.

[00:02:01]But you will confirm whichever date we take from the multiple dates on it.

[00:02:10]These are again events that this document was available about 1 and 1/2 years ago by the date given this of 17th of October, isn't it?

[00:02:24]I mean 37 40 10 Yes, but you have to agree this document was available. Yes.

[00:02:37]You also have to agree that with due diligence this document would have been placed before this honorable court about 1 and 1/2 years ago through a No opinion sir. I don't have No opinion.

[00:02:50]Fair enough.

[00:02:55]You have now attempted to explain a discrepancy between paragraph three of paragraph four of your affidavit.

[00:03:08]It talks of 3:00 p.m. That's correct.

[00:03:13]But exhibit three at the top right talks of 4:18 p.m. About an hour difference. Yes, sir.

[00:03:21]You agree that's a discrepancy on its face.

[00:03:26]On its face without more looking at it.

[00:03:28]Is there or is there no discrepancy?

[00:03:31]None whatsoever sir.

[00:03:33]Are you saying 4:18 p.m. is the same time as 3:00 p.m.?

[00:03:38]They are different times for different They are different times. Therefore, you agree with me sir. The honorable court the witness be given the opportunity to complete answer to his questions without being cautioned.

[00:04:00]Dr. Gikonyo, is it your testimony that the time 3:00 p.m. given at paragraph four of your affidavit is the same time given as 4:18 p.m. in the medical record?

[00:04:15]They are different Good. They are different occurrences.

[00:04:20]They are not the same thing we are describing.

[00:04:22]Okay.

[00:04:23]This explanation you are now offering on the witness dock, is it given anywhere in your affidavit?

[00:04:32]The explanation for the discrepancy, is it set out anywhere in your affidavit?

[00:04:39]It should be understood. No, the question is is it set out anywhere in your affidavit?

[00:04:47]That explanation you are now offering in court.

[00:04:49]Not there because >> fair. It was never raised.

[00:04:53]I would have been I would have given an answer if it was raised.

[00:04:55]>> We are here to raise it, unfortunately.

[00:04:58]And we have given an answer to Let's keep to that page 104.

[00:05:09]Dr. Gikonyo, you have to agree with me that we identify individuals in Kenya by reference to their national identity card or passport number. Correct or incorrect? It depend on the purpose, sir.

[00:05:24]In my class, they call me DK.

[00:05:28]Does this document Does this document indicate the identity card of the patient being attended to?

[00:05:37]Does it indicate the identity card number?

[00:05:40]We >> National identity card number. Either it does or it does not.

[00:05:46]We have the client's ID number in the same >> That's not my question, sir. My question is on its face does this document disclose the national identity card of the patient in this case?

[00:06:01]Deliberately not.

[00:06:03]Good.

[00:06:04]Does it indicate the travel passport number of the patient?

[00:06:10]>> Deliberately not. Good. Deliberately not. Yes. Very good answer.

[00:06:16]Does it give the patient's name?

[00:06:19]Deliberately not.

[00:06:21]Therefore, you have to agree with me, sir.

[00:06:25]A document that does not contain the patient's name does not contain the patient's national identity card number does not indicate the passport number we have no way based on the document of ascertaining who is the patient described in that document. We do have.

[00:06:47]We can ask the person who prepared it.

[00:06:49]No. The person on the dock is you.

[00:06:52]Does this document on its face, sir disclose the identity of the patient described there? Only by initials, R.G.

[00:07:03]R.G. Yes. Which could mean anything, isn't it? To other people, but not to me.

[00:07:08]Okay.

[00:07:09]>> [laughter] >> Fair enough.

[00:07:13]I put it to you, sir that you having brought this document to court you cannot run away from the fact that it doesn't disclose the identity of your patient. Deliberately so when it was prepared when it was prepared, but now I can disclose.

[00:07:30]Ask If you ask me who it is, I'll tell you. R.G. R.G. could as well be Rob Gitau, right?

[00:07:36]>> Could be, but it is not.

[00:07:40]It could be Ruth Gitanga. sir. It is not.

[00:07:44]Ask me what it is.

[00:07:45]>> anything, sir. It can be anyone and anything. In this category, no.

[00:07:49]Okay, fair enough.

[00:07:50]>> You can ask me who I is RG. I will tell you who is RG. The problem is that we don't believe you. That's why these questions are being asked.

[00:07:58]>> Ask you ask me why did you write RG. I will then I explain. It is me who chooses, unfortunately, the questions to ask.

[00:08:05]So, let's go to that the the the the the title of the document is a medical summary.

[00:08:14]Correct.

[00:08:17]You have to agree there is a difference between the summary and the primary document.

[00:08:23]That is true.

[00:08:27]So, has the primary document been placed before this court?

[00:08:31]I don't know.

[00:08:34]Can you see it anywhere in your affidavit? You can take time to flip through. Not in my affidavit.

[00:08:39]It is not in your affidavit.

[00:08:44]You have to agree with me, therefore, in the absence of the primary document, an independent reader has no way of confirming whether this summary agrees with the primary document. They can ask the writer who is in front of us here. No, on the documents uh we are dealing with the documents. In the absence of the primary documents, would a third party have a way of confirming whether the summary is accurate?

[00:09:15]If that document was adequate in itself, I would not be here.

[00:09:20]I am here to answer questions that pertain to the document to to say if what I say is correct.

[00:09:26]If it was adequate on itself, you would call me here.

[00:09:31]We actually called you, Dr. Ekonyo, because the document has just too many gaps.

[00:09:36]For me to go through this paragraph The paragraph of your affidavit talks of the 48 hours to 72 hours.

[00:09:48]Correct.

[00:09:48]>> That's paragraph seven of your affidavit. Correct, sir.

[00:09:54]If that were true, it would mean this patient and we mean patient R.G. whose identity we don't know. Which I can confirm.

[00:10:04]It would mean that this patient would have been discharged on or before 20th October 2024.

[00:10:12]Correct or incorrect? Or a month later?

[00:10:15]We are following the document, sir.

[00:10:18]Your paragraph says he was admitted for how long?

[00:10:23]48 to 72?

[00:10:27]Your paragraph seven.

[00:10:29]Sir, please read correctly. Recommended.

[00:10:38]And when does it say he was discharged?

[00:10:41]On the 20th. Of which month? Of October.

[00:10:44]Of October, good.

[00:10:46]And what is the discharge date given in the medical summary? November. November.

[00:10:53]That's actually that 4 days later.

[00:10:56]Correct. Correct? Yes.

[00:10:59]You have now attempted in your examine-in-chief to explain the discrepancy. Not attempting. I did explain. Okay.

[00:11:07]Let's take it you have explained.

[00:11:11]You have explained while on the witness dock Yes, Your Honor.

[00:11:15]the discrepancy of that before days, right?

[00:11:19]Yes, Your Honor.

[00:11:21]Is that explanation set out anywhere in your affidavit?

[00:11:26]The explanation you gave this court for that discrepancy.

[00:11:30]Well, yes. This is understood. I have a >> No, but my question is is the explanation you are now offering 1 and 1/2 years later? Uh-huh. Is it said Show me the paragraph of your affidavit that explains the discrepancy. It was not required.

[00:11:47]It was not required. But for the record,