M'rukaria M’Raria & 139 others v Mwichuiri Farmers Company Limited [1995] KECA 130 (KLR)
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
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the High Court judge could properly grant leave to administer interrogatories after the trial had commenced
- 2.Whether the interrogatories allowed were within the proper scope of interrogatories
Key legal issues
#Timing of leave to administer interrogatories
Granting leave to administer interrogatories after the trial commenced, with six witnesses already heard, was wrong and an improper exercise of discretion.
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.
Proper scope and form of interrogatories
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.
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.
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.The appeal is allowed
- 2.The leave given to administer interrogatories is set aside
- 3.There be a trial de novo before another judge
- 4.The appellant will have the costs of this appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- 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)
Relief refused
#Administration of interrogatories by the respondent (defendant)
The interrogatories sought evidence of the plaintiffs' case rather than specific admissions, and leave was granted after trial had begun, which was an improper exercise of discretion
Costs
The appellant will have the costs of this appeal.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is in our view trite that interrogatories can only be administered, timeously, to obtain specific admissions but not evidence.
Interrogatories must be clear, specific and answerable.
We must reiterate that the hearing of the summons for directions is the proper time to consider such matters as interrogatories, discovery and inspection although the steps as regards interrogatories may, in appropriate circumstances, be taken even before summons for directions if circumstances so warrant.
This appeal is therefore allowed and the leave given to administer interrogatories is set aside. The learned judge had already heard evidence of 6 witnesses before ordering the answering of interrogatories. In the circumstances, we think it prudent to order that there be a trial de novo before another judge. It is so ordered. The appellant will have the costs of this appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment as supplied does not state the case title, appeal number or the parties' names, identifying them only by roles (plaintiffs, defendant/appellant).
The judgment records counsel's concession that only orders 22 and 23 of the summons for directions were made, but does not state the exact procedural basis of the appeal (e.g. order/rule under which the appeal was brought).
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.