[1992] KEHC 107 (KLR)
The court held that the plaintiffs had been provided with sufficient particulars regarding the defendant's pleaded contribution towards the purchase of the suit premises. The plaintiffs' further demands for an itemized account, including receipts and modes of payment, amounted to an attempt to obtain evidence rather...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1992] KEHC 107 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mohannlal Parmar; Defendant: Bansikumar Parmar
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 807 of 1991
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Particulars
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the defendant
- Legal Topics
- Particulars in Pleadings, Discovery Process, Evidence Fishing
- 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
Mohannlal Parmar
Plaintiff
Bansikumar Parmar
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Particulars
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to further and better particulars from the defendant regarding his pleaded contribution towards the purchase of the suit premises.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs' request for itemized accounts and receipts amounts to fishing for evidence rather than seeking particulars of the defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the plaintiffs had been provided with sufficient particulars regarding the defendant's pleaded contribution towards the purchase of the suit premises. The plaintiffs' further demands for an itemized account, including receipts and modes of payment, amounted to an attempt to obtain evidence rather than particulars of the defence. The court emphasized that particulars are meant to clarify pleadings, not to compel disclosure of evidence prior to trial. Accordingly, the application for further particulars was dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the defendant
Orders
- The plaintiffs' application for further and better particulars is dismissed.
- The plaintiffs shall pay the costs of this application to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
8 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
Mohannlal Parmar & 2 Others v Bansikumar Parmar
High Court, at Nairobi May 19, 1992 Omolo J
Civil Case No. 807 of 1991
May 19, 1992, Omolo J delivered the following Ruling.
I think the Plaintiffs’ application for particulars comes periously close to fishing for evidence by which the defendant will support his case during the hearing. The defendant pleaded in paragraph 4 of his defence that he contributed pleaded in paragraph 4 of his defence that he contributed a total of Shs.237,650/- towards the purchase of the suit premises and that the plaintiffs are therefore not entitled to the orders they seek. The plaintiff then demanded from the defendant an itemized account showing how the sum of Shjs.237,650/- was arrived at and was arrived at and the manner in which the payment was made, viz. whether by cash or cheques and whether receipts were supplied. The defendant supplied the plaintiffs with a list of alleged payments and the list shows what was paid for and how much was paid for which item. The Plaintiffs are still not satisfied with this.
I agree with counsel fro the defendant that the plaintiffs have been served with sufficient particulars and they must wait for evidence in court regarding receipts and so on.
This application fails and I order it dismissed with costs to the defendant.