[2017] KEHC 2479 (KLR)
The court declined to review or interfere with its previous case management orders allowing the filing of Court of Appeal records and proceedings, holding that such directions are part of the court's mandate to ensure an expeditious and fair process. The court emphasized that the filing of documents does not equate...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 2479 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Keshavji Jivraj Shah; Defendant: Kenwal Sarjit Singh Dhiman
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 205 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review of Case Management Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- Review of Orders, Case Management, Admissibility of Documents
- 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
Keshavji Jivraj Shah
Plaintiff
Kenwal Sarjit Singh Dhiman
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review of Case Management Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should review or interfere with its previous case management orders allowing the filing of Court of Appeal records and proceedings.
- 2 Whether the record of court proceedings can be avoided or expunged without an express order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to review or interfere with its previous case management orders allowing the filing of Court of Appeal records and proceedings, holding that such directions are part of the court's mandate to ensure an expeditious and fair process. The court emphasized that the filing of documents does not equate to their admissibility or acceptance as evidence, which will be determined at trial. Furthermore, court records are accessible to all parties under the open justice principle, and unless there is an express order to expunge or annul such records, they remain part of the litigation history and may be referred to as necessary. The application for review was therefore dismissed as...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
Orders
- The application dated 19 April 2017 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.
- The parties will argue any other preliminary points once the matter is confirmed for trial.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
COMMERCIAL & TAX DIVISION
CIVIL SUIT NO. 205 OF 1999
KESHAVJI JIVRAJ SHAH………………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KENWAL SARJIT SINGH DHIMAN…..DEFENDANT
RULING
The application dated 19 April 2017 seeks to have this court review its orders of 29 March 2017 which allowed the filing of the Court of Appeal records and proceedings in CACA No. 33 of 2007. I must point out that the order was simply a re-confirmation of the previous orders by Farah Amin J. Lady Justice Farah Amin had on 2 November 2016 also directed that the record of appeal be filed in this cause.
I must also point out that the directions of 29 March 2017 and 2 November 2016 were made in the course of case management. The simple reason is that this court will never hesitate to allow the filing of any documents in the possession of any party. As to admissibility and relevance, that is an issue to be dealt with at trial. The documents directed and admitted to be filed do not relate to any admitted bundle of documents. The Applicant will be able to object to the record at an appropriate time. Besides, court records including Court of Appeal records are accessible to all parties as well as non- parties due to the open justice principle.
I would thus not interfere with or review the case management directions given for purposes of an expeditious proportionate and affordable process of prosecution of the claim and defence, if any.
With regard to the second limb; I must state that the record of court proceedings, unless there is an express order annulling and expunging the same, cannot be avoided. They constitute the litigation history and where and when relevant the court will refer to the same.
I consequently dismiss the application dated 19 April 2017 with costs to the Plaintiff.
The parties will argue any other preliminary points once the matter is confirmed for trial.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 9th day of October, 2017
J.L.ONGUTO
JUDGE
Further Orders
Mention on 16 October 2017.
Notice to issue.
J.L.ONGUTO