[2018] KEELC 2224 (KLR)
The court found that the application for leave to amend the plaint was unopposed and that there was no indication that granting the amendment would cause injustice to the defendant. The court relied on Order 8 rule 5(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which empowers the court to allow amendments to pleadings to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2224 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Anton Levitan; Defendant: Anthony Mwaura
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 338 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Plaint
- Outcome
- Application for leave to amend plaint granted.
- Judges
- DO Ohungo
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Mesne Profits, Eviction Orders
- 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
Anton Levitan
Plaintiff
Anthony Mwaura
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the plaint to include prayers for mesne profits and police assistance in eviction.
- 2 Whether granting leave to amend would occasion injustice to the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for leave to amend the plaint was unopposed and that there was no indication that granting the amendment would cause injustice to the defendant. The court relied on Order 8 rule 5(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which empowers the court to allow amendments to pleadings to determine the real questions in controversy. The court concluded that the interests of justice would be served by granting the plaintiff leave to amend the plaint as sought, subject to timelines for filing and serving the amended plaint and for the defendant to respond if necessary. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to amend plaint granted.
Orders
- The plaintiff is granted leave to amend the plaint in terms of the draft amended plaint annexed to the Notice of Motion dated 11th September 2017.
- The amended plaint to be filed and served within 14 days of delivery of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAKURU
ELC No. 338 OF 2012
ANTON LEVITAN...........................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ANTHONY MWAURA................................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This is a ruling in respect of plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dated 11th September 2017, an application pursuant to which the plaintiff seeks leave to amend the plaint so as to introduce a prayer for mesne profits and a prayer directing police to offer assistance in a contemplated eviction. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Valentine Mwende Wanyoike, an advocate having conduct of the matter on behalf of the plaintiff.
2. Though the court encouraged parties to attempt a settlement of the application, no settlement was reached. Ultimately, the court gave directions regarding filing of a replying affidavit as well as written submissions. Counsel for the respondent opted not to file any replying affidavit or written submissions. The applicant filed written submissions on 30th November 2017.
3. I have considered the application and the submissions filed by the applicant. The application is essentially unopposed. Pursuant to Order 8 rule 5(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has power to order amendment for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The said rule provides:
For the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, or of correcting any defect or error in any proceedings, the court may either of its own motion or on the application of any party order any document to be amended in such manner as it directs and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as are just.
4. As a general rule, leave to amend should be granted if no injustice will be occasioned to the respondent. As already pointed out, the present application is not opposed. I see no reason why leave to amend should not be granted.
5. In the circumstances, I order that:
a) The plaintiff is granted leave to amend the plaint in terms of the draft amended plaint annexed to Notice of Motion dated 11th September 2017.
b) The amended plaint to be filed and served within 14 (fourteen) days of delivery of this ruling.
c) The defendant is at liberty to file and serve an amended defence, if need be, within 14 (fourteen) days of service of the amended plaint.
d) Costs in the cause.
6. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nakuru this 31st day of July 2018.
D. O. OHUNGO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr Lukoba holding brief for Mr Maanda for the plaintiff/applicant
Mr Langat holding brief for Mr Karanja for the defendant/respondent
Court Assistants: Gichaba Lotkomoi