REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO. 1352 OF 1995 SABINA OYATSI...............................................................................PLAINTIFF versus BATA SHOE COMPANY (KENYA) LIMITED...............................DEFENDANT RULING This an application under Order 48 Rule 5(sub-rule 2) seeking to set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar made on 12th May 1997 wherein she dismissed the appellant’s application for provision of particulars of pleadings. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised 4 grounds of appeal which are of relevance. The respondent’s case is based on libel which she has given particulars in her plaint. Following the said plaint, the appellant requested to be provided with particulars which the respondent refused to provide. It is true that it is only the respondent who knows to whom she is referring to in the pleadings as potential employers. These are third parties and their disclosure is essential for the appellant to be able to respond adequately to the said pleadings. It is a requirement that a party should have notice of his oponents claim so that no prejudice shall result during the trial. In the case of (Bradbury -v- Cooper) 1883 12 C.B 94 which has been cited by the learned counsel for the appellant it was held that particulars of the party to whom the slander was uttered must be supplied. I agree with the holding and find that the ruling of the Deputy Registrar was wrong in law. Accordingly, I allow the appeal and order that the respondent shall supply the particulars requested for within 21 days of service of this order. In default the offending paragraphs of the plaint shall be struck out. The costs of this application shall be in the cause. Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 6th day of May, 1998. A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA JUDGE
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.