[2008] KEHC 372 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 372 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently answered the interrogatories delivered by the defendants. Upon reviewing both the interrogatories and the responses, as well as the grounds of opposition, the judge determined that there was no basis to compel the plaintiff to provide further answers. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 372 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: MAE Properties Limited; Defendant: Francis Thombe Nyammo; Defendant: Pacific Futures & Options Ltd; Defendant: Financial Futures & Options Ltd; Defendant: Express Financial Ltd; Defendant: Spring File Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 700 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Compel Answers to Interrogatories
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Discovery Process, Applications to Compel, Costs in the Cause
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Interrogatories Discovery Process Applications to Compel Costs in the Cause

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MAE Properties Limited

Plaintiff

Francis Thombe Nyammo

Defendant

Pacific Futures & Options Ltd

Defendant

Financial Futures & Options Ltd

Defendant

Express Financial Ltd

Defendant

Spring File Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Compel Answers to Interrogatories

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's answers to the interrogatories delivered by the defendants were sufficient.
  2. 2 Whether the court should compel the plaintiff to provide further answers to the interrogatories.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently answered the interrogatories delivered by the defendants. Upon reviewing both the interrogatories and the responses, as well as the grounds of opposition, the judge determined that there was no basis to compel the plaintiff to provide further answers. The application to compel was therefore denied, and costs were ordered to be in the cause.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • No order to compel further answers to interrogatories is granted.
  • Costs of the application shall be in the cause.