[2006] KEHC 3190 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 3190 (KLR)

The court found that the Defendant, by its response, indicated it would rely only on the agreements and further agreements already pleaded in the plaint. There was no indication that the Defendant was relying on any additional or separate agreements not already disclosed. The Plaintiff therefore had sufficient...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] KEHC 3190 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Ltd; Defendant: Big Bee Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 79 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Further and Better Particulars
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the defendant
Judges
DW Mbuteti
Legal Topics
Pleadings Particularity, Requests for Particulars, Striking Out Defence, Contractual Variations
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Pleadings Particularity Requests for Particulars Striking Out Defence Contractual Variations

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Ltd

Plaintiff

Big Bee Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Further and Better Particulars

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant has provided sufficient particulars in response to the Plaintiff's request for particulars of the defence.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant should be compelled to provide further particulars, failing which its defence should be struck out.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendant, by its response, indicated it would rely only on the agreements and further agreements already pleaded in the plaint. There was no indication that the Defendant was relying on any additional or separate agreements not already disclosed. The Plaintiff therefore had sufficient particulars to meet the Defendant's case at trial. The purpose of particulars is to prevent surprise, not to require a party to disclose its evidence or to allow the other side to fish for evidence. Since the Defendant's defence did not introduce new matters beyond those already pleaded, the Plaintiff's application for further particulars was unnecessary. The application was...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the defendant

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's application by chamber summons dated 28th October, 2005 is dismissed with costs to the Defendant.