The court found that the plaintiff's application to reopen her case and adduce further evidence was justified under the circumstances. The court noted that the additional documents, specifically the 2nd defendant's birth certificate and national identity card, were not previously available to the plaintiff despite due diligence. The court emphasized that the 1st and 2nd defendants had not prosecuted their case and would have the opportunity to challenge the new evidence through cross-examination. There was no inordinate delay in bringing the application, and the evidence sought to be introduced was relevant to the central issue of alleged fraudulent transfer of the suit property. The court exercised its discretion in favor of allowing the application, guided by the overriding objective to do substantive justice and allow parties to fully ventilate their cases, as provided under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Environment and Land Court Act, and the Constitution. The prayer for stay of proceedings was denied as it had been overtaken by events, and no order as to costs was made.