Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment as supplied· [1995] KECA 130 (KLR)

M'rukaria M’Raria & 139 others v Mwichuiri Farmers Company Limited [1995] KECA 130 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
27 October 1995
600 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that interrogatories must be raised early and can only seek admissions, not a preview of the other side's evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Court of Appeal (Gachuhi, Kwach and Shah JJ A) allowed the plaintiffs' (appellants') appeal against an order of Ang'awa J made on 4 March 1994 requiring 140 plaintiffs to answer interrogatories numbered 1 to 6 sought by the defendant's application of 7 February 1994. At the time the summons for directions was handled, only venue and length of trial were decided, contrary to order 51 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires the court at the first hearing of a summons for directions to consider all matters requiring consideration, including leave to administer interrogatories under order 11 of Form No 26. The High Court nevertheless granted leave to administer interrogatories after the trial had commenced and six witnesses had already testified. The Court held this was wrong and an improper exercise of discretion, since the proper time for interrogatories is the hearing of the summons for directions. It further held that interrogatories may only be used to obtain specific admissions, not evidence: interrogatories 1, 3 and 4 sought the plaintiffs' evidence in advance, while interrogatories 2, 5 and 6 were not even in the form of questions and were neither clear, specific nor answerable. The Court set aside the leave granted, ordered a trial de novo before another judge, and awarded the appellant the costs of the appeal. Judgment was dated and delivered at Nyeri on 27 October 1995 as a single judgment of the full bench.

Key legal issues

#
01

Timing of leave to administer interrogatories

Holding

Granting leave to administer interrogatories after the trial commenced, with six witnesses already heard, was wrong and an improper exercise of discretion.

Reasoning

Order 51 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules makes it the duty of the court, at the first hearing of a summons for directions, to consider all matters requiring consideration, and order 11 of the summons for directions form specifically deals with leave to administer interrogatories. Here the Deputy Registrar only dealt with venue and length of trial. The judge then granted leave after six witnesses had testified, a stage at which she had no proper discretion, so the order was an improper exercise of discretion.

p. 2
02

Proper scope and form of interrogatories

Holding

Interrogatories may only be used to obtain specific admissions, not evidence; interrogatories seeking the plaintiffs' evidence in advance, or that are unclear and unanswerable, cannot be allowed.

Reasoning

Interrogatories 1, 3 and 4 sought in advance the evidence the plaintiffs had, which falls outside the scope of interrogatories, whose function is to obtain specific admissions. Interrogatories 2, 5 and 6 did not even appear in the form of questions. Since interrogatories must be clear, specific and answerable, and cannot be used to obtain evidence, the orders compelling answers to them could not stand.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Leave to administer interrogatories should not be granted after the trial has commenced; the proper time is at the hearing of the summons for directions.
  • Interrogatories may only be used to obtain specific admissions, not to obtain evidence in advance.
  • Interrogatories must be clear, specific and answerable.
  • The hearing of the summons for directions is the proper time to consider interrogatories, discovery and inspection, though interrogatory steps may precede it in appropriate circumstances.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is allowed
  2. 2.The leave given to administer interrogatories is set aside
  3. 3.There be a trial de novo before another judge
  4. 4.The appellant will have the costs of this appeal
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya
Not stated in the judgment as supplied
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Court of Appeal (not expressly stated in the judgment as supplied)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "M'rukaria M’Raria & 139 others v Mwichuiri Farmers Company Limited [1995] KECA 130 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1995). Not stated in the judgment as supplied. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1995/130/eng@1995-10-27

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.