[2016] KEHC 1101 (KLR)
The court found that although the 1st defendant had been responsible for most previous adjournments, the documents sought to be introduced could be material to the fair determination of the issues in dispute. The court emphasized the need for a holistic consideration of all relevant evidence and held that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 1101 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nelson Havi; Defendant: Stephen Armstrong Jennings; Defendant: Nation Media Group Limited; Defendant: Wilfred Gitonga; Defendant: Mediamax Networks Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 341 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Adjournment and Leave to File Further Affidavit
- Outcome
- Application for adjournment and leave to file further affidavit allowed.
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment, Leave to File Further Affidavit, Introduction of Evidence, 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
Nelson Havi
Plaintiff
Stephen Armstrong Jennings
Defendant
Nation Media Group Limited
Defendant
Wilfred Gitonga
Defendant
Mediamax Networks Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Adjournment and Leave to File Further Affidavit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st defendant should be granted an adjournment to file a further affidavit introducing new documents.
- 2 Whether the introduction of the letter and statutory declaration is necessary for the fair determination of the issues before the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the 1st defendant had been responsible for most previous adjournments, the documents sought to be introduced could be material to the fair determination of the issues in dispute. The court emphasized the need for a holistic consideration of all relevant evidence and held that the interests of justice required that the new documents be placed on record. The court therefore allowed the application for adjournment and granted leave to the 1st defendant to file a further affidavit introducing the documents, with timelines for responses by the plaintiff and other defendants. Costs for the day were awarded to the plaintiff.
Court Disposition
Application for adjournment and leave to file further affidavit allowed.
Orders
- Leave granted to the 1st defendant to file a further affidavit introducing the letter dated 18th July 2016 and statutory declaration sworn on 21st July 2016 within 7 days.
- The affidavit to be served upon the plaintiff and other defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 341 OF 2015
NELSON HAVI ……………………………......…………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
STEPHEN ARMSTRONG JENNINGS
NATION MEDIA GROUP LIMITED
WILFRED GITONGA
MEDIAMAX NETWORKS LIMITED .…................,,}DEFENDANTS
RULING
When this matter came up today for the highlighting of the submissions filed by the parties to address the plaintiff’s application dated 29th September, 2015 the counsel for the 1st defendant sought an adjournment, to enable him file a further affidavit to introduce a letter dated 18th July 2016 by one Solomon Kivuva and a Statutory Declaration by the same person sworn on 21st July, 2016. The application is strenuously opposed by the plaintiff.
I have heard counsel on record on this matter. The plaintiff who is an advocate of this court, has taken the court through the record, blaming all previous adjournments on the 1st defendant. He submits that this is yet another deliberate step taken by the 1st defendant to delay the matter yet there are no interim orders to restrain the defendants from continued defamatory statements against him.
I agree that the resolution of this application has taken longer than it should have under normal circumstances. The record will show that the plaintiff has done everything possible to comply with orders made by the court, while admittedly most of the adjournments have been attributed to the 1st defendant.
That notwithstanding, the parties here and especially the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are involved in protracted litigation in this case, and from the material before me this is an extremely emotive matter. However, in the event that any material comes to light that may be useful to the court in the determination of the issues raised in the pleadings and or application, it should not be locked out.
From my observation of the plaintiff, it is not lost on me that as an advocate of this court he is concerned not only by the allegations made against him, but the adverse consequences to his person and profession. But then he is a party to these proceedings and in the instant case he is the one who initiated the case.
Both the letter and Statutory Declaration sought to be introduced refer to the plaintiff and or his firm. The letter in particular is copied to his firm and many other parties. The merits or otherwise of the contents of the two documents is not for me to address at this stage. However, I consider it necessary to have the two documents on record so as to enable the court to have a holistic consideration of the matters before it.
In that regard, I allow the application for adjournment and grant leave to the 1st defendant to file a further affidavit introducing the two documents. That affidavit shall be filed within the next 7 days and served upon the plaintiff and the other defendants.
The plaintiff (and any other defendant wishing to do so) shall reply thereto within 7 days of service. Thereafter the parties shall appear before the Duty Judge on 11th August, 2016 to take a hearing date for the highlighting of the submissions. Today’s costs shall be awarded to the plaintiff in any event.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 28th day of July, 2016
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE