[2003] KEHC 568 (KLR)
The court found that there was a consent filed between the firms of Ben Ochieng and Lunghanje regarding representation, and thus the objection to representation was not a substantive bar at this stage. No other objection was raised against the application for leave to file a supplementary affidavit. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] KEHC 568 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Alberto Canale; Defendant: Giovanni Gremmo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 138 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- Application for leave to file supplementary affidavit granted.
- Legal Topics
- Supplementary Affidavit, Leave of Court, Representation of Parties
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alberto Canale
Plaintiff
Giovanni Gremmo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to file a supplementary affidavit.
- 2 Whether the representation by the firm of Ben Ochieng is properly on record.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was a consent filed between the firms of Ben Ochieng and Lunghanje regarding representation, and thus the objection to representation was not a substantive bar at this stage. No other objection was raised against the application for leave to file a supplementary affidavit. The court exercised its discretion to allow the plaintiff to file the supplementary affidavit and granted the defendant corresponding leave to file a further affidavit in reply if necessary. The decision was based on the absence of substantive opposition and the need to allow both parties a fair opportunity to present their cases fully.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to file supplementary affidavit granted.
Orders
- Plaintiff granted leave to file supplementary affidavit.
- Defendant granted leave to file further affidavit in reply if necessary.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
7 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT MOMBASACIVIL SUIT NO.138 OF 2000
ALBERTO CANALE …………………………………………. PLAINTIFF VERSUS GIOVANNI GREMMO …………………………………….. DEFENDANT R U L I N G
Before me for hearing is an application dated 27. 1.03 brought under the Provisions of order 44 rule 2 and 50 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Mr. Machuka for the Applicant however applied for the grant of leave allowing him to file a Supplimentally Affidavit which he had already filed. The application was however opposed by Mr. Asige on the ground that the Firm of Ben Ochieng are not properly on record. I have however noted that there is a consent filed as between the Firms of Ben Ochieng and that of Lunghanje as regards representation. As to whether the procedure used is correct or is not for me to decide at this stage.
The issue for consideration at this point is to whether the plaintiff is to have leave to file a Supplementary Affidavit. No other objection has been raised and in the circumstances I will grant the same. The Defendant shall also have leave to file a further Affidavit in Reply if need be.
Dated and Delivered at Mombasa this February, 2003. P.M. TUTUI COMMISSIONER OF ASSIZE
5. 2.03 Coram: P.M. Tutui Commissioner Court clerk – Bakari Asige for Respondent Machuka for Applicant Ruling Delivered. P.M. TUTUI – C.A.