[2023] KEELC 20812 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 20812 (KLR)

The court held that the objection by the 3rd defendant regarding the production of the valuation report was misplaced because such objections should be raised during the pretrial stage, as stipulated by the relevant practice directions. The court emphasized that pretrial directions had already been conducted on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 20812 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Raphael Wanjohi Gikunju; Defendant: Jacinta Njeri t/a Munjethi Investments; Defendant: Gatundu Mang'u Farm Company Limited; Defendant: Kenya Urban Roads Authority
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 411 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Objection to Production of Valuation Report
Outcome
Objection dismissed.
Judges
LN Mbugua
Legal Topics
Pretrial Objections, Production of Documents, Practice Directions
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Pretrial Objections Production of Documents Practice Directions

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raphael Wanjohi Gikunju

Plaintiff

Jacinta Njeri t/a Munjethi Investments

Defendant

Gatundu Mang'u Farm Company Limited

Defendant

Kenya Urban Roads Authority

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Objection to Production of Valuation Report

  1. 1 Whether an objection to the production of a valuation report should be sustained when not raised during pretrial.
  2. 2 Whether objections to document production must be raised at the pretrial stage as per practice directions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the objection by the 3rd defendant regarding the production of the valuation report was misplaced because such objections should be raised during the pretrial stage, as stipulated by the relevant practice directions. The court emphasized that pretrial directions had already been conducted on multiple occasions, providing ample opportunity for any objections to be raised. The court relied on both statutory provisions and case law to reinforce that the pretrial process is the appropriate forum for resolving such procedural issues, and that raising them at the hearing stage undermines the efficiency and purpose of pretrial management. Consequently, the objection was...

Court Disposition

Objection dismissed.

Orders

  • The objection by counsel for the 3rd defendant is dismissed.