[2024] KEELC 13444 (KLR)
The court held that the application by the 7th Defendant to issue a notice to produce documents to the 8th Defendant after the close of pre-trial procedures was unmerited. The Civil Procedure Rules, specifically Order 11, require that all documents and witness statements be filed and disclosed before the hearing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 13444 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Supplies Services Limited; Defendant: Kenya Airports Authority (KAA); Defendant: Thwama Engineering Services Ltd; Defendant: Chief Land Registrar; Defendant: Pumwani Service Station Limited; Defendant: Bernard Nyakundi Makori; Defendant: Pual Njuguna Mburu; Defendant: Terrazo Enterprises Limited; Defendant: Director of Surveys
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 388 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Oral Application for Leave to Issue Notice to Produce
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MD Mwangi
- Legal Topics
- Disclosure of Documents, Pre Trial Procedure, Trial by Ambush, Case Management, Notice to Produce, Land Disputes
- 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
Supplies Services Limited
Plaintiff
Kenya Airports Authority (KAA)
Defendant
Thwama Engineering Services Ltd
Defendant
Chief Land Registrar
Defendant
Pumwani Service Station Limited
Defendant
Bernard Nyakundi Makori
Defendant
Pual Njuguna Mburu
Defendant
Terrazo Enterprises Limited
Defendant
Director of Surveys
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Oral Application for Leave to Issue Notice to Produce
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 7th Defendant should be granted leave to issue a notice to produce documents to the 8th Defendant after close of pre-trial procedures.
- 2 Whether post-trial discovery is permissible under the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application by the 7th Defendant to issue a notice to produce documents to the 8th Defendant after the close of pre-trial procedures was unmerited. The Civil Procedure Rules, specifically Order 11, require that all documents and witness statements be filed and disclosed before the hearing commences, during the pre-trial stage. The rationale is to prevent trial by ambush and ensure equality of arms between parties. Allowing post-trial discovery would undermine the expeditious and fair disposal of cases and disrupt the hearing process. The court found that no sufficient basis had been laid for the request, and that such applications should be dealt with during...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The oral application by the 7th Defendant for leave to issue a notice to produce to the 8th Defendant is disallowed.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
Supplies Services Limited v Kenya Airports Authority (KAA) & 7 others (Environment & Land Case 388 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 13444 (KLR) (14 November 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 13444 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Case 388 of 2021
MD Mwangi, J
November 14, 2024
Between
Supplies Services Limited
Plaintiff
and
Kenya Airports Authority (KAA)
1st Defendant
Thwama Engineering Services Ltd
2nd Defendant
Chief Land Registrar
3rd Defendant
Pumwani Service Station Limited
4th Defendant
Bernard Nyakundi Makori
5th Defendant
Pual Njuguna Mburu
6th Defendant
Terrazo Enterprises Limited
7th Defendant
Director of Surveys
8th Defendant
Ruling
(In respect of the oral application by the 7th Defendant seeking leave to issue a notice to produce to the 8th Defendant) 1. This ruling is in respect to the oral application by the 7th Defendant seeking leave to issue a notice to produce documents to the 8th Defendant made upon the close of the re-examination of the first Defence witness.
2. Counsel for the 7th Defendant stated that arising out of the evidence of DW1, he found it necessary to seek leave of the court to issue a notice to produce documents to the 8th Defendant. He did not specify the documents he wished the 8th Defendant to produce.
3. The application was vehemently opposed by the Senior State Counsel, Mr. Allan Kamau representing the 8th Defendant alongside the 1st and 3rd Defendants. He submitted that no basis had been laid before the Court to justify the request. He further asserted that information arising out of cross-examination cannot be the basis for such an application.
Determination 4. Ideally, a party in a suit is at liberty to issue a notice to produce documents to any other party(s) without leave of the court before the closure of pre-trial procedures. Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires parties to file their documents and witness statements at the pre-trial stage. Thereafter, pre-trial conferences are held where issues as the one now before the court are settled. Order 11 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that:“The purpose of a case management conference shall be to(a)Promote the expeditious disposal of case;(b)Afford the parties an opportunity to use alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to determine the case;(c)Afford the parties an opportunity to settle the case;(d)Determine any other matter relating to the management, hearing and disposal of the case;(e)Deal with pre-trial applications at first instance or formulate a timetable to deal with them as the court may deem fit; and(f)Identify the issues for determination.
5. Once a hearing begins, there should be no surprises or applications for post-trial discoveries. A hearing unlike a game of chess, requires parties to place all their cards on the table before the hearing begins.
6. Odunga, J (as he then was) in the case of Interactive Gaming & Lotteries Ltd – vs – Flint EA Ltd) & 2 Others (2013) eKLR, stated that the provisions of Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, are meant to ensure that parties to a suit disclose their evidence upfront before the commencement of the hearing of the suit in order to avoid trial by ambush. He made reference to his earlier decision in National Bank of Kenya Ltd – vs – John Aswani Litondo & Another, (NBI HCCC 171 of 2016, where he had stated that;“The rationale of Order 11 is to discourage trial by ambush and ensure that the provisions of Section 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act are meaningfully implemented to create a level playing field for all the parties before the Court by ensuring the principle of equality of arms is maintained and as far as practical to place the parties on equal footing. To conceal documents until after the Plaintiff’s case is closed was the kind of mischief that the rules intended to cure trial by ambush is no longer acceptable in civil litigation.”
7. The application by the 7th Defendant is not only unmerited but also likely to derail the seamless hearing of this case. It is hereby disallowed. The court makes no orders as to costs.It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024. M.D. MWANGIJUDGEIn the Virtual Presence of: -Mr. Ingutya for the PlaintiffMr. Allan Kamau for the 1st, 3rd & 8th DefendantsMr. Ndegwa h/b for Mr. Nyiha for the 4th DefendantsMs. Muthoni h/b for Mr. Michuki for the 7th DefendantN/A for the 2nd, 5th & 6th DefendantsCourt Assistant: YvetteM.D. MWANGIJUDGE