In a nutshell, the common feature of an abuse is in the improper use of the judicial process by a party in litigation. From the facts of this case, this is a fishing expedition because without a suit before this court for determination, there is no way this kind of application can be competent before the court. On what amounts to a fishing expedition I will refer to the case of Gale Vs Denman Picture Houses Ltd [1930] KB 588, 590 per lord, Scrutton L. J relied upon by the respondent wherein it was held inter alia thus “A plaintiff who issues a writ must be taken to know what his case is. If he merely issues a writ on the chance of making a case he is issuing what used to be called a “fishing bill” to try to find out whether he has a case or not. That kind of proceeding is not to be encouraged. For a plaintiff after issuing his writ but before delivering his statement of claim to say, “show me the documents which may be relevant so that I may see whether I have a case or not” is most undesirable proceeding.” I agree therefore that this application is a fishing expedition which cannot be allowed by this court. For the reasons I have endeavored to give in this ruling I will uphold the objections by all learned counsel for the respective respondents and find that this application is incompetent and is accordingly struck out with costs to the respondent. I so order. A certificate of three counsel is given. Stephen Musota 11