[2017] KEELC 2030 (KLR)
The court found that although the application to amend the defence was made after the plaintiff had testified, the trial had just commenced and the plaintiff could be recalled for further testimony. The court exercised its discretion to allow the amendment, holding that any prejudice to the plaintiff could be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 2030 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Danson Munene Kibetu; Defendant: Edward Njeru; Defendant: Evans Mbogo Mwangi; Defendant: James Muriuki Kiragu
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kerugoya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 26 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Oral Application to Amend Defence
- Outcome
- Oral application to amend the 1st defendant's defence allowed.
- Judges
- BN Olao
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Court Discretion, Prejudice and Costs, Timing of Amendment
- 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
Danson Munene Kibetu
Plaintiff
Edward Njeru
Defendant
Evans Mbogo Mwangi
Defendant
James Muriuki Kiragu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Oral Application to Amend Defence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st defendant should be granted leave to amend his defence after the plaintiff has testified.
- 2 Whether the proposed amendment would prejudice the plaintiff beyond compensation in costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the application to amend the defence was made after the plaintiff had testified, the trial had just commenced and the plaintiff could be recalled for further testimony. The court exercised its discretion to allow the amendment, holding that any prejudice to the plaintiff could be compensated by an award of costs. The court emphasized that amendments necessary for the determination of the real issues in controversy should generally be allowed unless there is irremediable prejudice to the other party.
Court Disposition
Oral application to amend the 1st defendant's defence allowed.
Orders
- The plaintiff is at liberty to amend his reply to the defence within 15 days from today.
- The plaintiff be re-called to testify again following that amendment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT KERUGOYA
ELC CASE NO. 26 OF 2016
DANSON MUNENE KIBETU.......................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
EDWARD NJERU..............................................1ST DEFENDANT
EVANS MBOGO MWANGI...............................2ND DEFENDANT
JAMES MURIUKI KIRAGU...............................3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
This is in respect to the 1st defendant’s oral application made on 21st March 2017 seeking to amend paragraph six (6) of his defence to include the year as 2010 and also the last sentence to read six (6) years. In his defence, the 1st defendant appears to have left some spaces blank which he now seeks to fill through that amendment. In arguing that application, MR. MUNENE advocate for the 1st defendant told the Court that the omission was not intentional.
MS MUTHIKE advocate for the plaintiff objected to the application stating that she had informed counsel for the 1st defendant about those gaps but nothing was done. That this is an afterthought meant to prejudice the plaintiff’s case as it has been made after the plaintiff has testified.
MR. NGIGI counsel for the 2nd defendant has no objection to the amendment stating that it will assist the Court to determine the issues.
Order 8 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules grants the Court power to consider an oral application to amend pleadings. Courts have a wide discretion to allow amendment of pleadings at any time unless it can be shown that the other party will be prejudiced which prejudice cannot be remedied by an award of costs – EASTERN BAKERY VS CASTELINO 1959 EA 461. The overriding consideration is whether the amendments sought are necessary for the determination of the suit and whether the delay in bring the application for amendment is likely to prejudice the opposite party beyond compensation in costs – CENTRAL KENYA LTD VS TRUST BANK LTD (2000) 2 E.A 365 (2000) e K.L.R.
The oral application herein was made after the plaintiff had finished giving his evidence and just before cross-examination. It is not clear why MR. MUNENE did not make that application at the commencement of the trial bearing in mind that MS MUTHIKE had drawn his attention to the gaps in the 1st defendant’s defence. Nonetheless, this Court takes into account the wide powers donated to it to allow amendments at any stage of the trial. The trial has just commenced and the plaintiff who had finished testifying but was yet to be cross-examined can be red-called. In my view there will be no prejudice that cannot be compensated for in costs.
I therefore allow the oral amendment to amend the 1st defendant’s defence as prayed and make the following further orders:
1. The plaintiff is at liberty to amend his reply to the defence within 15 days from today.
2. The plaintiff be re-called to testify again following that amendment.
3. The 1st defendant shall meet the plaintiff’s costs occasioned by that application.
4. The case be mentioned on 31st May 2017 for further direction as to hearing.
B.N. OLAO
JUDGE
5TH MAY, 2017
Ruling dated, signed and delivered in open Court this 5th day of May 2017
Mr. Ngigi for 3rd Defendant present
Mr. Muchira for Mr. Munene for 1st & 2nd Defendants present
Ms Muthike for Plaintiff absent.
B.N. OLAO
JUDGE
5TH MAY, 2017