[2018] KEHC 8551 (KLR)
The court held that the plaintiff's application for discovery was premature as the procedural requirements under Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules had not been complied with. The court further found that the right to access information under Article 35 of the Constitution and the Access to Information Act does...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 8551 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Hon. Kennedy Odhiambo Nyagudi; Defendant: Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 311 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Discovery
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Discovery of Documents, Premature Application, Access to Information, Admissions in Pleadings
- 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
Hon. Kennedy Odhiambo Nyagudi
Plaintiff
Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Discovery
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling the defendant to release specified documents prior to compliance with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the Access to Information Act or Article 35 of the Constitution applies to a commercial dispute between private parties.
- 3 Whether the defendant's admissions in pleadings render the requested discovery unnecessary.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the plaintiff's application for discovery was premature as the procedural requirements under Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules had not been complied with. The court further found that the right to access information under Article 35 of the Constitution and the Access to Information Act does not apply to commercial disputes between private parties. Additionally, since the defendant had admitted the material facts and existence of the documents in its defence, the orders sought by the plaintiff were not justified. The court also accepted the defendant's position that it was not in possession of the loss adjustors' report, as such reports are prepared by independent...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The plaintiff's motion dated 25.11.2016 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 311 OF 2016
HON. KENNEDY ODHIAMBO NYAGUDI..............PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
-V E R S U S –
KENYA POWER & LIGHTING CO. LTD.......DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1) Hon. Kennedy Odhiambo Nyakundi, the plaintiff herein, took out the motion dated 25. 11. 2016 in which he sought for inter alia:
a) ................. spent
b) ......................spent
c) An order to compel Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd, the defendant herein to forthwith release to the applicant the documents in the defendant’s possession namely:-
i. A copy of the applicant’s application for supply of electricity to the applicant’s farm.
ii. A copy of the quotation for electricity supply pursuant to the application above.
iii. A copy of the receipt acknowledging the receipt of the installation and/or connection fees.
iv. A copy of the duly executed electricity supply contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
v. A written report of the findings of the defendant’s investigators and/or loss adjustors following investigations conducted by the defendant arising from the plaintiff’s several complaints herein
d). .............spent
e). Cost of the applicant.
2) The plaintiff/applicant filed an affidavit he swore in support of the motion. The defendant filed the replying affidavit of Emil Kirui to oppose the motion.
3) I have considered the grounds stated on the face of the motion and the facts deponed in the affidavits filed in support and against the motion. I have also considered the rival written submissions. The plaintiff has submitted that he has requested the defendant to furnish him with the report compiled by the in investigation and loss adjustors which he requires to establish his claim but the defendant declined. The plaintiff further argued that the defendant has no good reasons to refuse to supply the plaintiff the required information. The plaintiff alluded that the defendant was actuated by malice and was acting in bad faith.
4) It is the submission of the defendant that the dispute between the parties is a commercial dispute hence it does not fall within the provisions of Article 35 of the Constitution. With respect, I agree with the submissions of the defendant. It is also clear from the defence that the defendant has admitted that the plaintiff applied for the supply of power and that a survey was done and a quotation prepared before payment was made. It is further admitted that the plaintiff duly paid for the connection fee in terms of the quotation. It is also admitted that a contract for the supply of a Three (3) phase of 415 volts was executed. In my view, the provisions of access to information Act is not applicable in this case. The application for discovery can only be done under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and the Rules therein. It would appear the plaintiff has moved too fast to seek for discoveries even before the provisions of Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules have been complied with. I think in my view that the application is premature.
5) A cursory look at the defendant’s defence will reveal that the documents the plaintiff seeks to be given are in respect of matters which the defendant appears to admit therefore the orders sought are not justified.
6) One of the documents the plaintiff has demanded to be supplied is the report of the loss adjustors. The defendant has denied being in possession of the aforesaid document. It is pointed out that the report is usually done by independent claim specialists employed by insurance companies to investigate claims on their behalf. With respect, I agree with the defendant that an order to compel it to supply such a report cannot be justified in the circumstances.
7) In the end and on the basis of the above grounds, I find no merit in the motion. The same is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Dated, Signed and Delivered in open court this 26th day of January, 2018.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
...............for the Plaintiff
...............for the Defendant