RULING
1. The Court has tried to hear the matter from where it had left.
2. According to the proceeding the hearing of the matter began with the evidence of 4th Plaintiff, 3rd Plaintiff and 5th Plaintiff.
3. In addition to these witnesses, PW4 who is a representation of Growel Farm was also called.
4. During the testimony of PW4, the documents which the 1st and 2nd Plaintiff will rely upon were not commented on by the representative from Growel Farm.
5. In addition, the exhibits produced and in particular the register of members complied by Growel Farm is also disputed.
6. This Court is of the view that for justice to be done and be seen to have been done, it is only prudent that this matter starts denovo so that all the Plaintiffs can testify on the same level and cross-examination be in an orderly manner.
8. Similarly, it gives the Court an opportunity to appreciate the evidence and document produced in a way that it will write a fair Judgement.
9. For this reason, the matter will start denovo.
IN THE PRESENCE OF;
Court Assistant: Brian
Plaintiff: 1st Plaintiff present in Court
2nd Plaintiff present in Court
Ms. Isiaho for the 3rd – 6th Plaintiff (N/A)
Defendant: Mr. Chemwok for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 7th Defendant
Ms. Tum holding brief Ms. Too for the 9th Defendant
N/A for the 8th Defendant
Ms. Mutai for the Interested Party (N/A)
| ELC.375 of 2017 RULING2 |