[2006] KEHC 1813 (KLR)
The court held that the amendment to the plaint made without leave was proper under Order VIA Rule 1, as parties are permitted to amend pleadings once without leave before pleadings are closed. The record showed that pleadings closed on 4th April 1989, after the defence to the amended plaint was filed. The defendant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1813 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Angelina Chelaga; Defendant: Elizabeth Mary Okello
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 3154 of 1988
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Amend Plaint
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the defendant
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Costs Award
- 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
Angelina Chelaga
Plaintiff
Elizabeth Mary Okello
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Amend Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend the plaint after pleadings have closed.
- 2 Whether the amendment sought is barred by limitation of actions.
- 3 Whether the defendant acquiesced to the amendment by filing a defence to the amended plaint.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the amendment to the plaint made without leave was proper under Order VIA Rule 1, as parties are permitted to amend pleadings once without leave before pleadings are closed. The record showed that pleadings closed on 4th April 1989, after the defence to the amended plaint was filed. The defendant did not apply for disallowance of the amendment within the prescribed 14 days but instead filed a defence to the amended plaint, which the court interpreted as acquiescence to the amendment. The court found no merit in the present application for leave to amend, as the amendment had already been effectively accepted by the defendant's conduct. Consequently, the application was...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the defendant
Orders
- The application for leave to amend the plaint is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 3154 of 1988
ANGELINA CHELAGA……………………………………………………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ELIZABETH MARY OKELLO……………………......……………..RESPONDENT
RULING
This application was filed in court in 15th July 1992 and is now in the hands of the 3rd advocate since. The same was brought by way of chamber summons under Order VIA rules 3, 5 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. In it the Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the Plaint in terms of a draft. Amended Plaint which despite the application stating so was not annexed to the application.
During the arguments on 18th February 2004 Counsel for the applicant relied on the affidavit of George Mwaura (then acting for the Plaintiff0 in which he refers to the amended Plaint filed on 24th January 1989 and stated that the reason for this application is to make good that amendment, which according to him, was made without leave despite pleadings being closed at the time.
In opposition counsel for the Respondent argued that the present application ought not to be allowed as it would have the effect of substituting a party in circumstances where the suit against the substituted defendant is time barred. In the case of plaintiff proceedings herein are a clear case of too many costs spoiling the broth, wherein the advocates on both sides have now completely lost their focus.
Having combed through the record, I see no reason for this application for the following reasons:
The amendment without leave was proper under Order VIA Rule 1 which allows a party to amend pleadings once without leave of the court before pleadings are closed. As borne out by the record, and from the Respondent’s pending Notice of Motion dated 4th May 1992, pleadings herein closed on 4th April 1989, presumably after the filing of the Defence to the Amended Plaint on 3rd April 1989. In the said Defence as well as in the grounds of opposition dated 23rd July 1992 (The copy in the court file is not stamped but bears an acknowledgment by the then advocate for the Plaintiff) the Defendant raises the issues of limitation as one of the grounds of challenging the amendment. The same line was pursued at the inter partes hearing.
According to the provisions of ORDER VIA Rule 2 A party served with a pleading amended without leave is at liberty to apply for disallowance of the amendment within 14 days of service. The Defendant did not do so but filed instead a Defence to the Amended Plaint. In my view she should be taken to have conceded to the amendment at that point Except to point out that the Police abstract report complained of bears the name Dr. E. Okello as the owner of the subject motor vehicle as stated by counsel, I see no reason to go into the merits of the application which as earlier stated is of no use and ought not to have been filed. The same is dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 12th day of March 2006
M.G. MUGO
JUDGE
Delivered in the presence of
No appearance for Plaintiff/Applicant
Tiego for Defendant/Respondent