[2017] KEHC 3072 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 3072 (KLR)

The court held that the applicant was entitled to amend his Petition of Appeal as the respondent had not demonstrated any prejudice that could not be compensated by costs. The court emphasized that denying leave to amend should only occur in exceptional circumstances where injustice would result, and that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 3072 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: D M M; Respondent: R M M
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Voi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
10 October 2017
Case Number
Civil Appeal 14 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Memorandum of Appeal
Outcome
Application allowed. Applicant granted leave to amend Petition of Appeal.
Judges
CM Kamau
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Leave to Amend Memorandum, Maintenance of Child, Civil Jail Committal
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Family and Children Amendment of Pleadings Leave to Amend Memorandum Maintenance of Child Civil Jail Committal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D M M

Applicant

R M M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Memorandum of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the Petition of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if the amendment is allowed.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's right to be heard would be compromised if leave is denied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant was entitled to amend his Petition of Appeal as the respondent had not demonstrated any prejudice that could not be compensated by costs. The court emphasized that denying leave to amend should only occur in exceptional circumstances where injustice would result, and that the applicant’s right to be heard and to present his case in the manner he deems fit is fundamental. Since directions under Order 42 Rule 3 had not yet been given, the application for leave was not strictly necessary, but the court nonetheless allowed it to ensure the applicant could fully ventilate his case. The respondent’s objections did not address the amendment issue substantively...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Applicant granted leave to amend Petition of Appeal.

Orders

  • Applicant to file and serve Amended Memorandum of Appeal within fourteen (14) days from the date of the ruling.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.