<p class="ql-align-justify">JUDGMENT</p><p class="ql-align-justify">On the 4th day of March, 1994, Ang’awa J ordered that 140 plaintiffs do all and each of them answer interrogatories numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as sought by the respondent (defendant) annexed to its application dated 7th February, 1994.</p><p class="ql-align-justify">It is not in dispute that summons for directions was dealt with before the trial began. At the time the summons for directions was dealt with (so Mr Sichangi for the respondent informed us) the only orders made were per orders 22 and 23 of the summons for directions, that is to say, the Deputy Registrar who dealt with the summons decided the venue of trial and length of trial only. No other points which ought to have been considered were considered at all.</p><p class="ql-align-justify">Six witnesses gave evidence before the application for leave to administer interrogatories was filed.</p><p class="ql-align-justify">It must be noted that order number 11 in the form for summons for directions (Form No 26, Appendix A to Civil Procedure Rules) specifically deals with the issue of leave to administer interroga…</p>