[2007] KEHC 2595 (KLR)
The court found that although the Plaintiff had complied with discovery obligations by serving a list of documents, and was not obliged to serve copies, the Plaintiff had in fact served a substantial bundle of documents. Given the seriousness and contested nature of the defamation case, and in the interest of a fair...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 2595 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ian Keino; Defendant: Isaiah Kiplagat; Defendant: The Standard Limited; Defendant: Chris Mbaisi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 154 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Adjournment
- Outcome
- Adjournment granted with costs to the Plaintiff.
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment of Hearing, Costs of Adjournment, Discovery of Documents, Defamation Proceedings
- 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
Ian Keino
Plaintiff
Isaiah Kiplagat
Defendant
The Standard Limited
Defendant
Chris Mbaisi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Adjournment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for adjournment by the Defendants should be granted.
- 2 Whether the Plaintiff was obliged to serve copies of documents in addition to the list of documents.
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded to the Plaintiff as a result of the adjournment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the Plaintiff had complied with discovery obligations by serving a list of documents, and was not obliged to serve copies, the Plaintiff had in fact served a substantial bundle of documents. Given the seriousness and contested nature of the defamation case, and in the interest of a fair trial, the court was inclined to grant the adjournment. However, the Defendants were ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs for the adjournment and related expenses, as the application for adjournment was not sufficiently substantiated by the 1st Defendant's counsel. The court emphasized the importance of parties exchanging copies of documents in advance to ensure fair and...
Court Disposition
Adjournment granted with costs to the Plaintiff.
Orders
- The Defendants shall pay the Plaintiff's Counsel's costs (getting up for trial) and the costs/expenses incurred by the Plaintiff and witnesses.
- The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants shall pay a sum of Kshs. 5,000 all inclusive to the Plaintiff for the adjournment, jointly and severally.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
Civil Suit 154 of 2004
IAN KEINO ……………………………................………………. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ISAIAH KIPLAGAT …………………......…….………… 1ST DEFENDANT
THE STANDARD LIMITED ……………..…….………. 2ND DEFENDANT
CHRIS MBAISI …………………………...……….……. 3RD DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
I have considered the Application for adjournment. I am satisfied that both the Counsels for the Defendants were duly served. Counsel for the 1st Defendant Mr. Ochieng Oduol is said to be in Nairobi and involved in another matter at the High Court there. He did not provide particulars of the said case. Order X, Rule II A (1) and (2) requires a party to make discovery by filing and serving on the opposite party a list of the documents relating to the matter in question in the suit which were or have been in his possession or power.
The Plaintiff duly did this in February, 2007. There is no obligation to file or serve copies of the documents. In many cases that is already happening.
I have seen the pleadings. This is a serious and heavily contested defamation case, I apprehend that if it goes to trial without the Defendants that there is a high likelihood that they will apply to set aside.
In all, I think that this suit deserves a full trial on the merits with all parties being heard. I am inclined to grant the adjournment. Next time the Defendants will be absent at their own peril.
The Defendants shall pay the Plaintiff’s Counsel’s costs (getting up for trial) and the costs/expenses incurred by the Plaintiff and witnesses which I shall assess right away. I will also give a new date in the new term.
I think Mr. Ochieng Oduol ought to have done more to show his good faith in making the application for adjournment. On the other hand, I have seen the bundle of documents that the Plaintiff served on the Defendants. They are substantial. They certainly require keen inspection considering that this is a defamation case. I know that the Plaintiff was not obliged to serve the documents. However, having chosen to serve and which gesture I must commend, it is in the interest of fair and expeditious trial that the parties have sufficient time to study the said documents. While the Rules are not elaborate after Summons for Directions was done away with, yet I think that a practice ought to be established that parties exchange copies of documents in advance for a fair and speed trial. I recommend such a practice to be nurtured by Counsel.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET ON THIS 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2007.
M. K. IBRAHIM
JUDGE
FURTHER ORDER
The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants shall pay a sum of Kshs. 5,000/= all inclusive to the Plaintiff for the adjournment of this case. They are to pay this jointly and severally. The Defendants to pay Court adjournment fees to be shared equally.
The hearing of the suit is taken out and stood over to 9th October, 2007 at 9 a.m.
M. K. IBRAHIM
JUDGE