[2016] KEHC 7933 (KLR)
The court found that since the matter had not yet been certified ready for hearing, both parties were still entitled to comply with the pre-trial requirements under Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. The defendant would not suffer any prejudice if the plaintiff was allowed to file the additional witness...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 7933 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Praful Kumar Lakhani; Defendant: Stephen Ndirangu Waweru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 686 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Witness Statement
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- MM Gitumbi
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Witness Statements, Pre Trial 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
Praful Kumar Lakhani
Plaintiff
Stephen Ndirangu Waweru
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Witness Statement
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted an extension of time to file the witness statement of Paul Mutie.
- 2 Whether the defendant would suffer prejudice if the extension is granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that since the matter had not yet been certified ready for hearing, both parties were still entitled to comply with the pre-trial requirements under Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. The defendant would not suffer any prejudice if the plaintiff was allowed to file the additional witness statement, as the defendant would also have the opportunity to file further witness statements or documents in response. Therefore, the application for extension of time was allowed.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The plaintiff is granted an extension of time to file the witness statement of Paul Mutie.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
ELC. CASE NO. 686 OF 2011
PRAFUL KUMAR LAKHANI..….…………….............. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
STEPHEN NDIRANGU WAWERU…..…..………………DEFENDANT
RULING
I have studied the Notice of Motion dated 29th January 2015 and its accompanying Affidavit sworn by the Plaintiff, sworn on 28th January 2015. The Plaintiff seeks an extension of time within which to file a witness statement of Paul Mutie to 17/4/14. In response, the Defendant filed his response by way of a “Supporting Affidavit” Sworn on 22/4/14. He opposes the Plaintiffs application. Both parties filed their written submissions which I have perused.
I see no big contest here considering that this matter has not yet been certified ready for a hearing.
Accordingly, parties are still open and allowed to comply with the provisions of order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rule, 2010.
No prejudice will be suffered by the Defendant if I allow this application as they are at liberty to file my other witness statements or documents they wish to in response to Mr. Paul Mutie’s witness statement.
Accordingly, I hereby allow this application. Costs in the cause. Parties to be allocated a date for pre-trial conference to pave way for the trial.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND
DAY OF JULY 2016.
MARY M. GITUMBI
JUDGE