[2017] KEELC 2554 (KLR)
The court found that although the application for leave to amend was filed four years after the suit, the matter was still fresh as pre-trial directions had not been completed and the hearing had not commenced. The proposed amendments only sought to introduce two additional parties without altering the prayers or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 2554 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: David Mwangi Ndirangu; Respondent: Ann Waithera Wanyoike; Respondent: Jacinta Wangui t/a Silver Butcher; Respondent: Catherine Njoki t/a Back Street Pub
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 264 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Plaint and for Temporary Injunction
- Outcome
- Application allowed in part; leave to amend plaint granted, temporary injunction refused.
- Judges
- AA Omollo, CK Yano
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Temporary Injunctions, Vacant Possession, Protected Tenancy
- 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
David Mwangi Ndirangu
Applicant
Ann Waithera Wanyoike
Respondent
Jacinta Wangui t/a Silver Butcher
Respondent
Catherine Njoki t/a Back Street Pub
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Plaint and for Temporary Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the plaint to join additional defendants.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from altering the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the application for leave to amend was filed four years after the suit, the matter was still fresh as pre-trial directions had not been completed and the hearing had not commenced. The proposed amendments only sought to introduce two additional parties without altering the prayers or the cause of action, which remained a claim for vacant possession as a purchaser. The court held that no prejudice or limitation defence was demonstrated by the respondents, and thus leave to amend should not be refused. Regarding the prayer for a temporary injunction, the court found that no evidence was provided to show ongoing illegal construction or waste of the property, and...
Court Disposition
Application allowed in part; leave to amend plaint granted, temporary injunction refused.
Orders
- Plaintiff granted leave to amend the plaint and file and serve the same within 15 days of the ruling.
- Prayer for temporary injunction is disallowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MOMBASA
ELC CIVIL SUIT NO. 264 OF 2012
DAVID MWANGI NDIRANGU..............................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
ANN WAITHERA WANYOIKE..............................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
JACINTA WANGUI T/A SILVER BUTCHER.......2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
CATHERINE NJOKIT/A BACK STREET PUB.....3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The plaintiff/applicant moved this Court vide a notice of motion dated 6th October 2016. In the motion, the applicant seeks leave to amend the plaint to bring in two new defendants. He also sought for an order of temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from erecting, renovating or altering the building which is located on plot No 2848 pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
2. The application is opposed by the defendant and the intended 2nd defendant. The defendant deposed that this application was filed after 4 years from date of filing the suit which is undue delay. That pre – trial directions have closed and the amendment would change the character of the suit against her. She denied being a trespasser or that she is erecting structures on the property.
3. The proposed 2nd defendant on her part deposed that she is a lawful tenant since 2007. That the proposed amendment is intended to deprive her of her rights as a protected tenant as the alleged renovations are mere routine maintenance works of the premises. She urged the Court to strike out the application for being incompetent.
4. Both advocates submitted on the application and I have read the said submissions. I have also perused the record and noted that the defendant filed her defence on 18th December 2012. On 16th June 2015 the defendant was given 21 days to comply with order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules. She is yet to do so and therefore cannot allude to the fact that pre – trial directions was undertaken and closed. Although the matter was subsequently listed for hearing, the same was adjourned on account of illness of the defendant’s advocate. So in as much as the application for leave to amend was filed 4 years late, the matter is still fresh.
5. I have also looked at the proposed amendments. It is only introducing two additional parties but the prayers remain the same. It is thus not true for the defendant to plead and submit that the intended amendment will alter the cause of action against her. The plaintiff is in essence seeking orders of vacant possession on account of a claim as a purchaser. This means that the cause of action is the same. Further the issue raised by the proposed 2nd defendant that she is a protected tenant can be taken up in her defence. Before she is joined as a party to this proceedings it is my considered opinion that she has no basis to oppose the application for amendment.
6. It is well settled in law that Courts will generally not refuse leave to amend unless the intended amendment will prejudice the defendant and or deny a party the defence of limitation. In regard to prejudice, all the defendants w have an option of leave to amend their defence and/or file a statement of defence as the case may be. As regards defence of limitation none has been disclosed in the replying affidavits filed. Accordingly I find no reason to refuse the request for amendment. Consequently the plaintiff is granted leave to amend his plaint and file and serve the same within 15 days of the delivery of this ruling.
7. On the prayer for temporary injunction, no evidence was put before the Court to show the so-called illegal ongoing constructions and or wasting of the suit property. In any event the applicant has asked for an order for demolition of the structures in the main suit. There is no proper basis laid out to support this limb of the application. The same is disallowed i.e. prayer for temporary injunction. In conclusion the application succeeds in part to the extent that leave to amend is granted. Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the main suit.
Dated & signed at Mombasa this 28th day of June 2017
A. OMOLLO
JUDGE
Delivered at Mombasa this 29th day of June 2017
C. YANO
JUDGE