[2008] KEHC 587 (KLR)
The court held that it is not permissible for a party to correspond with the court or seek to re-open arguments after submissions have concluded and a ruling has been reserved. The proper procedure is to await the court's decision and, if dissatisfied, to seek review or appeal. The defendant's conduct in writing to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 587 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Printing Industries Limited; Plaintiff: Multiple Industries Limited; Defendant: Bank of Baroda Kenya Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 335 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Defendant's post-hearing submissions disregarded; parties to await ruling on injunction.
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Court Procedure, Ex Parte Orders, Company Law 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
Printing Industries Limited
Plaintiff
Multiple Industries Limited
Plaintiff
Bank of Baroda Kenya Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether it is proper for a party to correspond with the court after arguments have concluded and a ruling has been reserved.
- 2 Whether the defendant's counsel's conduct in seeking to re-open arguments after conclusion is permissible under the Civil Procedure Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it is not permissible for a party to correspond with the court or seek to re-open arguments after submissions have concluded and a ruling has been reserved. The proper procedure is to await the court's decision and, if dissatisfied, to seek review or appeal. The defendant's conduct in writing to the court and seeking to mention the matter was contrary to the Civil Procedure Act and the principles of fair trial. The court disregarded the defendant's submissions made after the conclusion of arguments and discouraged such practices in the strongest terms.
Court Disposition
Defendant's post-hearing submissions disregarded; parties to await ruling on injunction.
Orders
- The court disregards the defendant's submissions made after conclusion of arguments.
- The parties are to await the court's ruling on the injunction application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Civil Case 335 of 2008
PRINTING INDUSTRIES LIMITED……...…1ST PLAINTIFF
MULTIPLE INDUSTRIES LIMITED.……....2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
BANK OF BARODA KENYA LIMITED….….DEFENDANT
RULING
This court heard the parties on 30th July 2008 on an application for injunction. Both parties made submissions and concluded their arguments. Ruling was reserved by this court for the 1st October 2008. There was a pending administrative issue that was being addressed by the presiding Judge the Hon. Lady Justice Lesiit regarding the manner which the initial ex-parte order was extracted. The file was placed before Lady Justice Lesiit to address the issue said administrative issue. It has been dealt with to the satisfaction of both parties.
However, the defendant’s counsel made a strange request to Lesiit J. He sought an order for the matter to be mentioned before this court. Further to that, the defendant’s counsel wrote a letter to the court making allegations that the plaintiffs’ counsel could have misled the court when making submission regarding the interpretation of Section 96 of the Companies Act. I think the procedure adopted by the defendant’s counsel is not contemplated under the Civil Procedure Act and the rules made thereunder. Once arguments have been concluded, and a ruling reserved, and such a party discovers new facts or aspect of the law that may affect the outcome of the matter in dispute, such a party is required to wait the ruling of the court, and if he so desires, he can apply to review the ruling of the court or alternatively appeal to a higher court. It will not do for a party to correspond to the court regarding a matter, which is pending delivery of the ruling.
I am not sure what I can classify such a conduct to be - but I think it goes against the principle regarding the fair trial of a case. It is a practice, which in think, should be discouraged in the strongest possible terms. I will disregard the submissions made by counsel for the defendant, which in effect seek to re-open arguments, which were already concluded. The defendant should await the decision of the court and then it can take whatever action it deems appropriate in the circumstances.
DATED at NAIROBI this 1st day of SEPTEMBER 2008.
L. KIMARU
JUD