[2017] KEELC 3328 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff's list of questions did not constitute proper interrogatories as contemplated under Order 11 rule 3(2) b of the Civil Procedure Rules. Instead, the questions were deemed to be in the nature of cross-examination and amounted to a fishing expedition for evidence. The court held that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3328 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mohammed Jama Abdi; Defendant: Jimmy Nyagaka; Defendant: Rhoda Onyancha; Defendant: James Gachoki; Defendant: Attorney General; Defendant: Abigael Muhonja
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 153 A of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Interrogatories and Pretrial Procedure
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's application for answers to interrogatories declined; matter to proceed to hearing.
- Legal Topics
- Interrogatories, Pretrial Discovery, Cross Examination, Case Management
- 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
Mohammed Jama Abdi
Plaintiff
Jimmy Nyagaka
Defendant
Rhoda Onyancha
Defendant
James Gachoki
Defendant
Attorney General
Defendant
Abigael Muhonja
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Interrogatories and Pretrial Procedure
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's list of questions qualifies as proper interrogatories under Order 11 rule 3(2) b.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to responses to the interrogatories as framed.
- 3 Whether the court should compel answers or direct the matter to proceed to hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's list of questions did not constitute proper interrogatories as contemplated under Order 11 rule 3(2) b of the Civil Procedure Rules. Instead, the questions were deemed to be in the nature of cross-examination and amounted to a fishing expedition for evidence. The court held that pretrial discovery should not be used as an unfocused attempt to uncover damaging evidence, and that the appropriate forum for such questioning is during the hearing. Consequently, the court declined to compel answers to the interrogatories and directed the parties to set the matter down for hearing.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's application for answers to interrogatories declined; matter to proceed to hearing.
Orders
- Parties to set down the matter for hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT ELDORET
E&L CASE NO.153 A OF 2012
MOHAMMED JAMA ABDI……………………….………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JIMMY NYAGAKA ………………………….……..1ST DEFENDANT
RHODA ONYANCHA………………………...……2ND DEFENDANT
JAMES GACHOKI………………………………...3RD DEFENDANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL…………………………….4TH DEFENDANT
ABIGAEL MUHONJA…………………………...…5TH DEFENDANT
RULING
This matter was mentioned on 30. 8.2016 when Mr. Odongo learned state counsel submitted that the Attorney General had filed witness statements and explained that the witness will respond in the dock on the issues raised in the interrogatories. He sought the court to visit the site and ascertain the status quo. Mr. Otieno learned counsel for the plaintiff complained that there was no answer to interrogations and referred to Order 11 rule 3(2) b.
I have considered the submissions of both counsel and do find that list of questions framed by the Plaintiff are questions to be asked during cross examination and not interrogations. With respect to Mr Otieno, it appears that the plaintiff intends to use the pretrial investigation discovery or witness questioning in an unfocused attempt to uncover damaging evidence to be used against the defendant.
The interrogatories appear to be a fishing expedition I do direct that parties do set down the matter for hearing.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 28th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
A.OMBWAYO
JUDGE