[2015] KEHC 73 (KLR)
The court held that while the ideal situation is for applications to amend pleadings to be made in writing, the law is silent on the requirement for a written application. An oral application is acceptable as long as the opposing party is given an opportunity to respond. Insisting on a written application would only...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 73 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Brain Erick Fockler; Appellant: Abrahim Tuta Mumia; Appellant: Grace Rael Mungala; Respondent: Prof. Herman J.M. Ssemuju
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 22 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Ruling on Application to Amend Memorandum of Appeal
- Outcome
- Application to amend memorandum of appeal allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Oral Applications, Memorandum of Appeal, Procedural Fairness
- 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
Brain Erick Fockler
Appellant
Abrahim Tuta Mumia
Appellant
Grace Rael Mungala
Appellant
Prof. Herman J.M. Ssemuju
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Ruling on Application to Amend Memorandum of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellants should be allowed to amend the memorandum of appeal after the hearing has commenced.
- 2 Whether an oral application to amend pleadings is permissible under the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that while the ideal situation is for applications to amend pleadings to be made in writing, the law is silent on the requirement for a written application. An oral application is acceptable as long as the opposing party is given an opportunity to respond. Insisting on a written application would only serve to delay the proceedings unnecessarily. The respondent would not suffer prejudice as he would have ample opportunity to respond to the amended memorandum of appeal. Therefore, the appellants' oral application to amend the memorandum of appeal was allowed, and the re-amended memorandum was accepted on record.
Court Disposition
Application to amend memorandum of appeal allowed.
Orders
- The appellants' oral application to amend the memorandum of appeal is allowed.
- The re-amended memorandum of appeal is accepted and deemed properly filed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2015
1. BRAIN ERICK FOCKLER
2. ABRAHIM TUTA MUMIA
3. GRACE RAEL MUNGALA::::::::::APPELLANTS
VERSUS
PROF.HERMAN J.M. SSEMUJU:::::DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This ruling is prompted by a development that took place a day after the hearing of the appeal had already started. The development is this: The appellants counsel brought amended grounds of appeal and that did not go down well with the respondent. The respondent raised objection. What followed were arguments and counter-arguments. The end result is this ruling.
2. This is a matter where things seems to be in a state of flux. The matter apparently seems ripe for hearing but things keep on cropping up. Before starting to hear the appeal on 12. 11. 2015, the respondent sprung a surprise. He came with some documents and the appellants side raised concern. The court eventually accepted some documents and we started hearing the appeal. It was rather late in the day and hearing did not go far. The matter was scheduled for further hearing the following day.
3. The following day came and it was the appellants turn to come up with a surprise. And the surprise is the development mentioned herein. The appellant wants to amend his Memorandum of appeal. The issue here is whether to allow or disallow the amendment.
4. The Respondent thinks that the appellant is trying to re-open concluded issues. He also thinks that the appellant should have brought a written application to which he can respond.
5. Well the Law is as stated by the appellant. Order 42 Rule (3) (2) of Civil 'Procedure Rules 2010, allows amendment even where hearing has started. All what is required is that an application be made. The respondent thinks the application should be written. The law is actually silent on this. The appellants application was oral.
6. I think that the ideal situation is where the application is written. But I also think that an oral application can be accepted provided the other side is afforded opportunity to respond. And that is what we have done here. I think that if we insist on written application, that only takes up more time which can otherwise be expended in hearing the Appeal.
7. I take the position that the amendment should be allowed. The Respondent looses nothing as he will have ample opportunity to controvert and/or make the necessary rebuttals. The appellants request is therefore accepted and the filed- re-amended memorandum of appeal is hereby accepted.
8. I realize that the respondent may wish to respond. He is allowed to do so. It is important that both sides put everything in place for hearing. If this is not done changes will keep on coming up. We will then keep on hearing and re-hearing. We need to proceed without a hitch. Let both sides act with all due dispatch so that the matter can be heard without further delay.
A.K. KANIARU — JUDGE
ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT BUSIA
Ruling delivered and Dated 1st day of December 2015.
In the Presence of
APPLICANT……………………………
RESPONDENT………………………...
A. K. KANIARU-JUDGE
ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT BUSIA