REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO.138 OF 2000 ALBERTO CANALE …………………………………………. PLAINTIFF VERSUS GIOVANNI GREMMO …………………………………….. DEFENDANT RULING Before me for hearing is an application dated 27.1.03 brought under the Provisions of order 44 rule 2 and 50 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Mr. Machuka for the Applicant however applied for the grant of leave allowing him to file a Supplimentally Affidavit which he had already filed. The application was however opposed by Mr. Asige on the ground that the Firm of Ben Ochieng are not properly on record. I have however noted that there is a consent filed as between the Firms of Ben Ochieng and that of Lunghanje as regards representation. As to whether the procedure used is correct or is not for me to decide at this stage. The issue for consideration at this point is to whether the plaintiff is to have leave to file a Supplementary Affidavit. No other objection has been raised and in the circumstances I will grant the same. The Defendant shall also have leave to file a further Affidavit in Reply if need be. Dated and Delivered at Mombasa this February, 2003. P.M. TUTUI COMMISSIONER OF ASSIZE 5.2.03 Coram: P.M. Tutui Commissioner Court clerk – Bakari Asige for Respondent Machuka for Applicant Ruling Delivered. P.M. TUTUI – C.A.
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.