[2021] KEELC 3287 (KLR)

[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
Civil Procedure Land and Property Amendment of Pleadings Leave to Amend Demolition Orders Prejudice and Injustice Relief Modification

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has satisfied the criteria for grant of leave to amend the plaint before hearing.
  2. 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.