[2014] KEHC 1872 (KLR)
The court held that the application by the 3rd and 4th defendants to compel production of bank account statements during cross-examination was procedurally improper. The Civil Procedure Rules require that all documents to be relied upon at trial be disclosed and exchanged during pre-trial conferences, and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 1872 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Pauline Mutee Makumu; Plaintiff: Kilungu Justus Muli; Defendant: Ursula Kreszenntia; Defendant: Monika Herkenrath; Defendant: Peter Jurgen Herkenrath; Defendant: Jaffarali Kassam Abdulla; Defendant: Oscar Juma
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 388 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Interlocutory Application During Cross Examination
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- SN Mukunya
- Legal Topics
- Discovery of Documents, Production of Bank Records, Notice to Produce, Cross Examination Procedure
- 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
Pauline Mutee Makumu
Plaintiff
Kilungu Justus Muli
Plaintiff
Ursula Kreszenntia
Defendant
Monika Herkenrath
Defendant
Peter Jurgen Herkenrath
Defendant
Jaffarali Kassam Abdulla
Defendant
Oscar Juma
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Interlocutory Application During Cross Examination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 3rd and 4th defendants are entitled to seek production of bank account statements during cross-examination without prior notice to produce.
- 2 Whether such an application can be made orally during cross-examination rather than through pre-trial procedures.
- 3 Whether the failure to follow prescribed procedures under the Civil Procedure Rules and Evidence Act bars the production of the requested documents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application by the 3rd and 4th defendants to compel production of bank account statements during cross-examination was procedurally improper. The Civil Procedure Rules require that all documents to be relied upon at trial be disclosed and exchanged during pre-trial conferences, and the Evidence Act mandates that a notice to produce must be served before secondary evidence can be introduced. Since the applicants had not issued a notice to produce under Section 69 of the Evidence Act and had not sought the documents through the prescribed pre-trial procedures, their oral application during cross-examination was not permissible. The court dismissed the application,...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for summons to Barclays Bank to produce account statements is dismissed.
- The suit shall proceed for hearing of cross-examination of PW2.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
COPY
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
ELC. 388 OF 2010
PAULINE MUTEE MAKUMU .................................... 1ST PLAINTIFF
KILUNGU JUSTUS MULI ......................................... 2ND PLAINTIFF
- VERSUS -
URSULA KRESZENNTIA ........................................ 1ST DEFENDANT
MONIKA HERKENRATH ........................................ 2ND DEFENDANT
PETER JURGEN HERKENRATH .. ........................ 3RD DEFENDANT
JAFFARALI KASSAM ABDULLA . ...........................4TH DEFENDANT
OSCAR JUMA .......................................... ................ 5TH DEFENDANT
RULING
[1] During the hearing of this case, when the second defendant Mr Justus Kilungu Muli was being cross-examined by Mr. Gikandi Learned Counsel for the 3rd and 4th defendant, in the middle of cross-examination Mr. Gikandi applied for an order addressed to Barclays Bank Ltd Nkrumah road to avail to court details of Account no [particulars withheld] in the name of Petusha Guest House and Restaurant for the period between 1st February 2010 to 30th March 2010. Mr.Munyithia learned counsel for the plaintiff opposed that application vehemently. He argued that they filed their clients statements on 14th June 2013 and served it upon the counsels for all the defendants. He stated that he was not served with any notice to produce the statement. The other issue raised by Mr. Munyithia was that Mr. Gikandi appeared for 3rd and 4th defendants and the issue of how money was spent was never raised. He argued that there is no provision in law that gives the 3rd and 4th defendant right to apply for the plaintiffs documents at the time of cross-examination.
[2] After this objection Mr Gikandi in an apparent abandonment of his application applied for summons to issue to the manager Barclays Bank Nkrumah road on behalf of the 3rd and 4th defendant to come to court and produce statements of Account No. [particulars withheld] in the name of Petusha Guest House for the period between 1st February 2010 to 31st March 2010.
[3] Mr Munyithia for the plaintiff opposed the application and said the 3rd and 4th defendants have nothing to do with his clients accounts. He said that there was mischief in that the 1st and 2nd defendants were not being called. He called it an initiative of panel beating pleadings. he argued that such an order shall be oppressive on his client while assisting to put life in the 3rd and 4th defendants case.
[4] Mr. Kabebe learned counsel argued that the defendants are sued together. He stated that the circumstances under which the Kshs. 12 million was paid was relevant. That the production of that document will vindicate the witness and show that he has not perjured himself.
(5) The Civil Procedure Rules under Order II provides for a very comprehensive procedure called the pre-trial directions and conferences where all the documents to be relied on will be indicated, shown and exchanged. Infact Order II rule 7 (1) and 7 (I) (d) provides:
7(i) At least 30 days before the hearing date of the suit a trial conference shall be convened by the court for the following purposes
a) . . .
b] . . .
c] . . .
d] Ordering the admission of statements without the calling of the makers and witness where appropriate and the production of any copy of statement where the original is unavailable.
The Evidence Act Cap 80 Section 69 provides as follows;
Secondary evidence of the contents of the documents referred to Sec 68 (i) (a)shall not be given unlessthe party proposing such evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the documents is or his advocate, such notice to produce it as required by law or such notice as the court considers reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
(underlining mine)
[6] The documents Mr. Gikandi now requires while on his feet cross examining were documents he should have obtained under provisions of Order II. He has not issued a notice to produce under Sec. 69 of the Evidence Act. His requiring of the same in the middle of a hearing cannot be accepted or condoned by the court. The application is not allowed and is dismissed. The suit shall proceed for hearing of cross-examination of PW2.
Dated and delivered in open court at Mombasa this 6th day of November 2014.
S. MUKUNYA
JUDGE
6. 11. 2014