[2005] KEHC 1228 (KLR)
The court found that the omission of a verifying affidavit in the respondent's original Answer to Petition and Cross-petition was a bona fide procedural error. Since the drafts attached to the application were unsigned and only intended as drafts, the court held that proper, signed documents could be filed once...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 1228 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: C G M; Respondent: M W M
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Divorce Cause 101 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Divorce Cause / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Answer and Cross Petition
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Divorce Procedure, Amendment of Pleadings, Verifying Affidavit Requirements
- 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
C G M
Petitioner
M W M
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Divorce Cause / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Answer and Cross Petition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent should be granted leave to amend the Answer to Petition and Cross-petition to include a verifying affidavit and additional allegations of cruelty and adultery.
- 2 Whether the absence of a verifying affidavit and unsigned drafts invalidates the application for amendment.
- 3 Whether the inconvenience caused to the petitioner by the amendment can be compensated by costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the omission of a verifying affidavit in the respondent's original Answer to Petition and Cross-petition was a bona fide procedural error. Since the drafts attached to the application were unsigned and only intended as drafts, the court held that proper, signed documents could be filed once leave was granted. The court emphasized that rule 14(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules requires a verifying affidavit for new facts, and that the amendment was necessary to regularize the respondent's pleadings and allow her to ventilate her case. The inconvenience to the petitioner could be compensated by an award of costs. Accordingly, the court granted the respondent leave to...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The respondent is granted leave to amend the Answer and Cross-petition dated 5th August 2003, to be filed and served within 21 days.
- The petitioner is at liberty to file a reply to the Answer and Cross-petition within 14 days of service.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
Divorce Cause 101 of 2003
C G M…………………………..………………..PETITIONER
Versus
M W M…………………………………………RESPONDENT
RULING
The application dated 30th June 2004, was brought under Rules 3(3) and 14(1) (3) & 4 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules, by the respondent in this divorce cause. The respondent seeks for leave to amend the Answer to Petition filed herein, in terms of the annexed draft Answer to Petition and Cross-petition.
The application is supported by the affidavit of the respondent which details the reasons for the amendment as follows:
a) That the Answer to Petition and Cross-petition that was filed on 8th August 2003 is void for lack of a verifying affidavit.
b) That the omission to include the verifying affidavit was inadvertent.
c) The respondent would like to bring to the attention of the court, acts of cruelty and adultery which is necessary before the determination of this cause.
The application was opposed by the petitioner, who filed grounds of objections, which were expounded as follows:
1) There is no Cross-petition at all as it is not signed by the respondent, there is also no verifying affidavit, as provided for under rule 6(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules thus there being no valid annextures duly signed by respondent the court should not speculate on the proposed amendment. Moreover the supporting Affidavit is defective as it fails to disclose who caused the omission.
2) Lastly the petitioner argued that the application offends the provisions of rule 14(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules which require the applicants verifying affidavit which should verify the new facts only.
I have carefully considered the application, the supporting affidavit and the draft amended Answer to Petition and Cross-petition. It is correct both the drafts amended Answer to Petition and Cross-petition and the verifying affidavit are not signed by the respondent. Since these are mere drafts, it is after the leave is granted that is when the Amended Answer and Cross-petition and the verifying Affidavit may be filed and served.
I have also considered the provisions of rule 14(3) of the Matrimonial Causes which require the respondent cross-petitioner to file a verifying affidavit of the new facts alleged.
The amendment is merely sought to regularize the Answer and Cross-petition that was filed without leave of the court.
In the absence of the Amendment the respondent has no case before this court. I am inclined to allow the amendment in the interest of justice, so that the respondent can have an opportunity to ventilate her case.
I am encouraged in the respect by the fact that this amendment was caused by a bona fide omission although the applicant does not state who caused the omission. That is failure to file the verifying affidavit this could have been caused by counsel who drew the documents and filed and since this amendment has inconvenienced the petitioner, I am satisfied that that inconvenience can be compensated with costs.
I therefore grant the applicant/respondent leave to amend the Answer and Crosspetition dated 5th August 2003 to be filed and served within 21 days. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file reply to the Answer and Cross-petition within 14 days of such service. The petitioner shall have costs of this application.
It is so ordered.
Ruling read and signed on 17th December 2004.
MARTHA KOOME
JUDGE