[2021] KEELC 3287 (KLR)
The court found that the intended amendments sought by the plaintiff did not introduce a new cause of action but were based on the same facts already pleaded. There was no evidence of likely prejudice or injustice to the defendants as a result of the amendments. The guiding principle is that amendments before...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 3287 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Afyare Enterprises Company Limited; Defendant: Gideon Kirema Mugambi; Defendant: Max Gas and Logistics Limited; Defendant: The Chief Land Registrar Nairobi; Interested Party: Gladys Kaluyu Mugambi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 1626 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Plaint
- Outcome
- application for leave to amend plaint granted
- Judges
- BM Eboso
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Leave to Amend, Demolition Orders, Prejudice and Injustice, Relief Modification
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Afyare Enterprises Company Limited
Plaintiff
Gideon Kirema Mugambi
Defendant
Max Gas and Logistics Limited
Defendant
The Chief Land Registrar Nairobi
Defendant
Gladys Kaluyu Mugambi
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has satisfied the criteria for grant of leave to amend the plaint before hearing.
- 2 Whether the intended amendments would cause prejudice or injustice to the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the intended amendments sought by the plaintiff did not introduce a new cause of action but were based on the same facts already pleaded. There was no evidence of likely prejudice or injustice to the defendants as a result of the amendments. The guiding principle is that amendments before hearing should be allowed if they do not cause injustice, and any such injustice can be compensated by costs. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff met the criteria for grant of leave to amend the plaint, and therefore granted the application, allowing the plaintiff to file and serve the amended plaint within 14 days. The defendants were also granted leave to file and serve...
Court Disposition
application for leave to amend plaint granted
Orders
- Plaintiff granted leave to amend the plaint dated 22/12/2016 strictly in terms of the draft amended plaint attached to the application dated 5/8/2020.
- Amended plaint to be filed and served within 14 days from the date of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT NAIROBI
ELC CASENO. 1626 OF 2016
AFYARE ENTERPRISES COMPANY LIMITED........................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
GIDEON KIREMA MUGAMBI……………….......……...1ST DEFENDANT
MAX GAS AND LOGISTICS LIMITED ……….......…..2ND DEFENDANT
THE CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR NAIROBI ...……......3RD DEFENDANT
GLADYS KALUYU MUGAMBI ..……….......….......INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
1. Before me for determination is the plaintiff’s application dated 5/8/2020 through which the plaintiff seeks leave of the court to amend the plaint dated 22/12/2016. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Hassan Abdi Warsame, a director of the plaintiff. He deposed that the plaint dated 22/12/2016 was drawn before the current developments on the suit property were erected. He added that it was, in the circumstances, necessary to amend the plaint to include a plea for demolition of the said developments in the event the plaintiff’s claim succeeds.
2. The 1st defendant, through Mr Gichuru –Advocate, neither opposed nor supported the application. They left it to the court to make a decision. Similarly, the interested party, through Ms Judy Thongori SC, neither opposed nor supported the application.
3. The 2nd defendant opposed the application through a replying affidavit sworn on 21/10/2020 by Ahmed Mohamed Elmi. He deposed that upon acquiring the suit property, the 2nd defendant demolished the then existing developments and constructed new developments on the suit property. He added that the application should not be allowed because the amendments would expose the 2nd defendant to injustice.
4. The application was canvassed through written submissions dated 2/12/2020. The 2nd defendant responded through rival written submissions dated 30/11/2020.
5. I have considered the application, the 2nd defendant’s replying affidavit, and the rival written submissions in support of and against the application. The single question falling for determination in this application is whether the applicant has satisfied the criteria upon which our courts exercise jurisdiction to grant leave to amend pleadings.
6. Jurisdiction to grant leave to amend pleadings is exercised within the framework of Order 8 rule 3 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides as follows:
Subject to Order 1, rules 9 and 10, Order 24, rules 3, 4, 5 and 6 and the following provisions of this rule, the court may at any stage of the proceedings, on such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be just and in such manner as it may direct, allow any party to amend his pleadings.
7. The guiding principle applicable when exercising jurisdiction to grant leave to amend pleadings is that amendments sought before the hearing of a suit should be freely allowed if they can be effected without exposing the other side to an injustice. Secondly, there would be no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs [see Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] E.A 461].
8. I have looked at the draft amended plaint attached to the present application. The plaintiff seeks to improve on the efficacy of the reliefs sought in the plaint by adding a plea that the developments erected on the suit property by the 2nd defendant be demolished in the event that the plaintiff’s claim succeeds. In my view, the intended amendments do not introduce a new cause of action; they flow from the same set of facts which have already been pleaded in the existing plaint. More important, there is no evidence of any likely prejudice or injustice which any of the defendants will be exposed to by the said amendments. Consequently, the court is satisfied that the applicant has met the criteria for grant of leave to amend pleadings.
9. The net result is that the plaintiff is granted leave to amend the plaint dated 22/12/2016 strictly in terms of the draft amended plaint attached to the application dated 5/8/2020. The amended plaint shall be filed and served within 14 days from today. The defendants shall have corresponding leave to file and serve amended defences within 14 days from the date of service. The amendments by the defendants shall be limited to the pleadings introduced through the amended plaint.
10. Costs of the application shall be in the cause.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY 2021.
B M EBOSO
JUDGE
In the Presence of: -
Mr Sumba for the Plaintiff
Ms Kadzungu holding brief for Ms Ndirangu for the Interested Party
Court Assistant: June Nafula