[2001] KEHC 792 (KLR)
The court found that the proposed amendment to the plaint should be allowed as the suit had not been heard and no prejudice was alleged by the defendant. The court determined that the issue of res judicata was not conclusively decided in previous proceedings, and any such objection could be raised in the amended...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KEHC 792 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Barlany Car Hire Services Limited; Defendant: Corporation Insurance Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 1249 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Plaint
- Outcome
- application for leave to amend plaint granted
- Judges
- CA Otieno
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Res Judicata, Prejudice to Parties
- 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
Barlany Car Hire Services Limited
Plaintiff
Corporation Insurance Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the plaint before hearing.
- 2 Whether the proposed amendment raises an issue that is res judicata.
- 3 Whether allowing the amendment would prejudice the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the proposed amendment to the plaint should be allowed as the suit had not been heard and no prejudice was alleged by the defendant. The court determined that the issue of res judicata was not conclusively decided in previous proceedings, and any such objection could be raised in the amended defence. The court emphasized that amendments before hearing should be freely allowed unless they cause injustice, which was not demonstrated in this case. The plaintiff was therefore granted leave to amend the plaint, subject to payment of costs to the defendant.
Court Disposition
application for leave to amend plaint granted
Orders
- Plaintiff granted leave to amend its plaint.
- Annexed amended plaint deemed duly filed upon payment of court fees.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS
CIVIL CASE NO. 1249 OF 2000
BARLANY CAR HIRE SERVICES LIMITED ……….…… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CORPORATION INSURANCE LIMITED ……………… DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This application is for leave to amend Plaint. Draft amended Plaint is annexed. The suit has not been heard. Ground for seeking the order to amend is that it has become necessary to amend the Plaint dated the 20th June 2000 in order to enable the Honourable Court to determine the real question in controversy between the parties herein. The application is opposed and replying affidavit sworn by the Defendant’s counsel was filed on 13. 11. 2000. The main ground of opposition is that the proposed amendment seeks to raise is an issue which is already res judicata as the court has decided on the issue.
No prejudice is being alleged by the Respondent. As to whether the issue raised in the amendment has been decided upon is in doubt as the application that was before court was on whether to refer the matter to arbitrator or not. The court gave reasons from a Preliminary point before it. The question raised in the amendment was touched on but no final conclusive decision can be said to have been made at the time. I do agree the comments made by court at that time were clearly orbiter dictum. It is important to note that the court went ahead and stated in the same ruling as follows:
“I will abstain from striking out the Plaint for a further 28 days so that the Plaintiff has an opportunity within that time to apply to amend its Plaint if so advised”.
It is important to note further that court later on made another remark in another Ruling as follows:
“Whether the litigants go to arbitration or the Plaintiff successfully argues its pending application to amend its Plaint, in either forum the Plaintiff will be heard”.
As I have stated hereinabove, no prejudice has been alleged by the Respondent in case the amendment is allowed. If the Plaint will after amendment contain matters that are to the mind of the Defendant res judicata, the Respondent/Defendant will have opportunity to raise the same in its amended Defence. In the case of Eastern Bakery vs. Castelino (1958)
“Amendments to pleadings sought before the hearing should be freely allowed if they can be made without injustice to the other side, and there is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs”.
I do grant this application. Plaintiff has leave to amend its Plaint and the annexed amended Plaint deemed as duly filed upon court fees for the same being paid. Defendant allowed ten days from the date hereof to file amended Defence. Plaintiff will pay costs of this application to the Defendant plus costs occasioned by the amendment. Orders accordingly.
Dated and dated at Nairobi this 6th day of December 2001.
ONYANGO OTIENO
JUDGE