SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

NELSON MACHARIA MUHUHU v PAUL MWANGI THIOMO & ANOTHER [2006] KEHC 1389 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 1389 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1389
Citation
[2006] KEHC 1389 (KLR)
Decided
13 September 2006
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureDefendants' defense filed under Order X Rule 20 and Order L Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules was challenged for failure to file a list of documents within 14 days.CoramJ.L.A. OSIEMO
Holding

The plaintiff's application to strike out the defendants' defense for failure to file and serve a list of documents is dismissed. The court ruled that the defendants did file a Police Abstract under the Defendant's list of documents, and that the requirement is to make discovery and file documents, not to serve a list.

Facts

The plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion alleging that the defendants failed to comply with an order made on 23rd October 2003 requiring them to file and serve their list of documents within 14 days. The defendants claimed that the court-ordered advocates were no longer on record.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants' failure to file a list of documents within 14 days is a valid ground for striking out their defense.
  2. Whether the court's order requiring the defendants to file and serve their list of documents is a requirement for using documents in support of their case.

Reasoning

The court explained that the defendants did file a Police Abstract, and that the requirement is to make discovery and file documents, not to serve a list.

Outcome

The plaintiff's application is dismissed.

Orders

  • The defendants' defense filed herein be dismissed with costs.
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.0 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case