[2015] KEHC 1255 (KLR)
The court held that cross-examination must be limited to relevant matters and cannot include questions relating to a defendant whose case has been withdrawn. The objection to such questioning was properly sustained. However, recognizing the right of the plaintiff's advocate to challenge the ruling, the court granted...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 1255 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: George Gatembo (Suing as the legal representative of the estate of Joseph Muguna (deceased)); Defendant: Elijah Mutegi M'Rwito; Defendant: M'Mugane M'Rutere; Defendant: Henry Kiambi; Defendant: Japhet Gakuru Maburia; Defendant: Shedrack Kiruki M'Laaria; Defendant: M'Kirera M'Angare; Defendant: Rufa M'Arigo; Defendant: Francis M'Ikiugu M'Muthuri; Defendant: Josphat Muriuki Riura; Defendant: Fredrick Kiogora Gitonga; Defendant: Geoffrey Koome Mbaya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 70 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Interlocutory Ruling on Objection During Cross Examination
- Outcome
- Objection sustained; leave to appeal granted.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Cross Examination Scope, Leave to Appeal, Withdrawal of Claim, Trial Objections
- 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
George Gatembo (Suing as the legal representative of the estate of Joseph Muguna (deceased))
Plaintiff
Elijah Mutegi M'Rwito
Defendant
M'Mugane M'Rutere
Defendant
Henry Kiambi
Defendant
Japhet Gakuru Maburia
Defendant
Shedrack Kiruki M'Laaria
Defendant
M'Kirera M'Angare
Defendant
Rufa M'Arigo
Defendant
Francis M'Ikiugu M'Muthuri
Defendant
Josphat Muriuki Riura
Defendant
Fredrick Kiogora Gitonga
Defendant
Geoffrey Koome Mbaya
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Interlocutory Ruling on Objection During Cross Examination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's advocate is entitled to cross-examine a witness on matters relating to a defendant whose case has been withdrawn.
- 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the ruling sustaining the objection during cross-examination.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that cross-examination must be limited to relevant matters and cannot include questions relating to a defendant whose case has been withdrawn. The objection to such questioning was properly sustained. However, recognizing the right of the plaintiff's advocate to challenge the ruling, the court granted leave to appeal and directed that a certified copy of the ruling be availed to the advocate at the normal cost.
Court Disposition
Objection sustained; leave to appeal granted.
Orders
- A certified copy of this ruling be availed, at the normal cost, to Mr. Mwanzia, the plaintiff's advocate.
- Leave to appeal the ruling sustaining the objection is granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CIVIL SUIT NO. 70 OF 2012
GEORGE GATEMBO (Suing as the legal representative of
the estate of Joseph Muguna (deceased)............................................ PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ELIJAH MUTEGI M'RWITO............................................................1ST DEFENDANT
M'MUGANE M'RUTERE.................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
HENRY KIAMBI................................................................................3RD DEFENDANT
JAPHET GAKURU MABURIA........................................................4TH DEFENDANT
SHEDRACK KIRUKI M'LAARIA....................................................5TH DEFENDANT
M'KIRERA M'ANGARE....................................................................6TH DEFENDANT
RUFA M'ARIGO.................................................................................7TH DEFENDANT
FRANCIS M'IKIUGU M'MUTHURI.................................................8TH DEFENDANT
JOSPHAT MURIUKI RIURA.............................................................9TH DEFENDANT
FREDRICKKIOGORA GITONGA..................................................10TH DEFENDANT
GEOFFREY KOOME MBAYA.........................................................11TH DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
During Cross-examination of DW1, an objection was raised by Mr. Riungu that Mr. Mwanzia for the Plaintiff had delved into asking questions concerning the 1st Defendant, deceased, whose case had been withdrawn by the Plaintiff. I sustained the objection. Mr. Mwanzia has challenged my ruling which sustained the objection. He further added that in cross-examination of a witness, he is entitled to ask anything under the sun including what breakfast the witness ate in the morning. I do not agree.
Mr. Mwanzia has asked that a copy of this ruling be availed to him to enable him to appeal. He has also sought leave to appeal against my ruling that sustained the apposite objection.
I direct as follows:
A certified copy of this ruling be availed, at the normal cost, to Mr. Mwanzia, the plaintiff's advocate.
Leave to appeal the ruling sustaining the objection is granted.
It is so ordered.
Delivered in Open Court at Meru this 2nd day of November, 2015 in the presence of:
Cc. Lilian/Daniel
Mwanzia for Plaintiff's
Mwirigi for 2nd, 6th, 9th, 10th and 11th Defendants
Riungu for 5th Defendant
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE