[2001] KEHC 671 (KLR)

[2001] KEHC 671 (KLR)

The court found that the defendant's answers to the plaintiff's request for particulars were woefully inadequate, vague, and did not follow the itemized structure of the request. The particulars provided were too general and failed to inform the plaintiff of the specific acts or omissions alleged, the dates, or the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] KEHC 671 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Alaric B. Da Cunha; Defendant: Nairobi Golf Hotels (K) Limited t/a The Windsor Golf & Country Club
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 1122 of ??
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Further and Better Particulars
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Pleadings Particulars, Counter Claims, Employment Misconduct, Breach of Contract
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Pleadings Particulars Counter Claims Employment Misconduct Breach of Contract

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alaric B. Da Cunha

Plaintiff

Nairobi Golf Hotels (K) Limited t/a The Windsor Golf & Country Club

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Further and Better Particulars

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's particulars in response to the plaintiff's request are sufficiently detailed and adequate.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant should be compelled to provide further and better particulars of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the amended defence, set off, and counter-claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's answers to the plaintiff's request for particulars were woefully inadequate, vague, and did not follow the itemized structure of the request. The particulars provided were too general and failed to inform the plaintiff of the specific acts or omissions alleged, the dates, or the manner in which the losses were incurred. The court held that the purpose of particulars is to prevent surprise at trial and to enable the plaintiff to know the case he has to meet. Since the defendant's responses did not meet this standard, the court allowed the application and ordered the defendant to file and serve further and better particulars of paragraphs 9 and 10 of its...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The defendant shall file and serve upon the plaintiff within 14 days further and better particulars of paragraphs 9 and 10 of its defence and counter-claim.
  • The particulars must be arranged in paragraph form and address each distinct request as set out in the plaintiff's request for particulars.