[2005] KEHC 2248 (KLR)
The court found that the defendant would not be prejudiced by the plaintiff's further list of documents, as the defendant would have the opportunity to cross-examine any witness testifying on the documents and could request the recall of P.W.1 for further cross-examination if necessary. The court distinguished the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 2248 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: M.A. Bayusuf & Sons Ltd.; Defendant: Reliable Freight Services Ltd.
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 483 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Interlocutory Ruling on Objection to Further List of Documents
- Outcome
- Objection overruled with costs to the plaintiff.
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Documents, Supplementary List of Documents, Trial Procedure, Documentary Evidence
- 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
M.A. Bayusuf & Sons Ltd.
Plaintiff
Reliable Freight Services Ltd.
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Interlocutory Ruling on Objection to Further List of Documents
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should be allowed to file a further list of documents after the hearing has commenced.
- 2 Whether the defendant would be prejudiced by the admission of the plaintiff's further list of documents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendant would not be prejudiced by the plaintiff's further list of documents, as the defendant would have the opportunity to cross-examine any witness testifying on the documents and could request the recall of P.W.1 for further cross-examination if necessary. The court distinguished the authority cited by the defendant, noting that in that case the authenticity of the document was questioned and it was specifically prepared to answer evidence already tendered. Here, the defendant itself had filed multiple lists of documents after the hearing commenced, undermining its objection. The court concluded that there was no valid basis for the objection and overruled...
Court Disposition
Objection overruled with costs to the plaintiff.
Orders
- The defendant's objection to the plaintiff's further list of documents is overruled.
- Costs of the objection are awarded to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
Civil Suit 483 of 1998
M.A. BAYUSUF & SONS LTD. ………………. PLAINTIFF
- Versus -
RELIABLE FREIGHT SERVICES LTD. … DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The trial in this case commenced on 9th December 2003 when P.W.1 partly testified in chief. When he attempted to produce a document that was not on the plaintiff’s list of documents counsel for the defendant objected forcing the plaintiff to seek an adjournment to enable it file a supplementary list of documents. The matter was adjourned generally and the plaintiff filed a supplementary list of documents.
When the case came up for hearing on 10th February 2005 counsel for the plaintiff successfully applied to have the evidence of P.W.1 disregarded as he had not been crossexamined and has now left the plaintiff’s employment and cannot be traced. The plaintiff called one witness who testified and was cross-examined and the case was adjourned to 16th March 2005. It was not heard on that date.
On 11th March 2005 the plaintiff had filed a further list of documents. When the hearing was to resume on 8th June 2005 counsel for the defendant objected to the filing of the further list of documents arguing that the plaintiff should have filed its final list of documents before the hearing commenced and that the further list of documents is new evidence which is ambushing the defendant. She further argued that the defendant had requested for particulars which were supplied and the plaintiff should confine itself to the particulars supplied. Citing the decision of this court (Hon. Justice Khaminwa) in Pheneas Omwola Ndengu Vs Umoja Rubber Products Ltd. HCCC No. 337 of 1998 (unreported) she submitted that the plaintiff’s further supplementary list of documents should be struck out.
In response Mr. Nyongesa for the plaintiff submitted that the objection is mischievous and is intended to stop the plaintiff from placing before court all evidence in support of its case. He further submitted that the filing of the further list was prompted by the defendant’s act of filing a further list on 10th February 2005 after the hearing in this case had commenced. He said that the authority cited is distinguishable.
I have considered these submissions. To start with the authority cited I find that the same is distinguishable. The authenticity of the document struck off the list of documents in that case was questioned and the document was specifically prepared to answer the plaintiff’s evidence which had been tendered. Counsel has not stated how the defendant will be prejudiced by the plaintiff’s further list of documents. When the documents will be produced she will have an opportunity to cross-examined the witness or witnesses who will on testify on it and if need be she can have P.W.1 recalled for further cross-examination.
The defendant itself has filed three lists of documents the last one being on 10th February 2005 long after the hearing had commenced. I agree with Mr. Nyongesa that the objection has no basis. It is accordingly overruled with costs to the plaintiff.
DATED and delivered this 17th day of June 2005.
D.K. MARAGA
JUDGE