[2017] KEHC 10076 (KLR)
The court found that the Amended Plaint was filed well outside the 14-day period stipulated by Order 8 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and there was no evidence that the plaintiff had obtained an extension of time from the court. Consequently, the order granting leave to amend had lapsed, and the Amended Plaint...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 10076 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Diocese of Kitui Registered Trustees; Defendant: Timothy Karungu Karanja; Defendant: Dry Associates Limited; Defendant: Car and General (K) Limited; Defendant: Meridas Capital Limited; Defendant: Investment House Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 47 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution and to Strike Out Amended Plaint
- Outcome
- Application partially allowed; Amended Plaint struck out; application for dismissal for want of prosecution rejected; costs to applicant.
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Striking Out Pleadings, Want of Prosecution, Extension of Time
- 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
Diocese of Kitui Registered Trustees
Plaintiff
Timothy Karungu Karanja
Defendant
Dry Associates Limited
Defendant
Car and General (K) Limited
Defendant
Meridas Capital Limited
Defendant
Investment House Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution and to Strike Out Amended Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Amended Plaint filed on 25th April 2017 was filed out of time and without leave of court.
- 2 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Amended Plaint was filed well outside the 14-day period stipulated by Order 8 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and there was no evidence that the plaintiff had obtained an extension of time from the court. Consequently, the order granting leave to amend had lapsed, and the Amended Plaint was filed without valid leave and was therefore struck out. On the issue of dismissal for want of prosecution, the court held that since the Amended Plaint was filed and served less than a year before the application to dismiss was made, the requirements of Order 17 Rule 2(1) had not been satisfied. Therefore, the application to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution was...
Court Disposition
Application partially allowed; Amended Plaint struck out; application for dismissal for want of prosecution rejected; costs to applicant.
Orders
- The Amended Plaint filed on 25th April 2017 is struck out.
- The application to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution is rejected.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
COMMERCIAL AND TAX DIVISION
CIVIL SUIT NO. 47 OF 2014
DIOCESE OF KITUI REGISTERED TRUSTEES....................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
TIMOTHY KARUNGU KARANJA……………….......1ST DEFENDANT
DRY ASSOCIATES LIMITED…………………..…...2ND DEFENDANT
CAR AND GENERAL (K) LIMITED............................3RD DEFENDANT
MERIDAS CAPITAL LIMITED………........................4TH DEFENDANT
INVESTMENT HOUSE LIMITED................................5TH DEFENDANT
RULING NO.2
1. The 2nd Defendant has asked the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s suit for want of prosecution.
2. In the alternative, the 2nd Defendant asked the court to strike out the Amended Plaint which was filed on 25th April 2017, on the grounds that the said Amended Plaint was filed out of time.
3. It is common ground that on 25th April 2017 the Amended Plaint was filed in court.
4. The Amended Plaint was filed consequent upon a consent order recorded in court on 29th September 2015.
5. Pursuant to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules;
“Where the court has made an order giving any party leave to amend, unless that party amends within the period specified or, if no period is specified, within fourteen days, the order shall cease to have effect, without prejudice to the power of the court to extend the period”.
6. When the court allows a party to amend a pleading, the court may specify the period within which the amendment is to be effected.
7. However, in the event that the court did not specify the period within which the amendment is to be effected, the rule stipulates that the amendment be effected within 14 days from the date when the order was made.
8. The period between 29th September 2015 and 25th April 2017 is definitely well over 14 days. Therefore, unless the plaintiff demonstrated to the court that the court had given it that much time within which to amend the Plaint, it follows that the amendment was filed well out of time.
9. It would therefore follow that by the time when the Plaint was being amended, the order which had allowed the amendment to be effected, had ceased to have effect.
10. Therefore, the Amended Plaint was filed without the leave of the court.
11. Accordingly, as the plaintiff had not obtained the extension of time within which to amend the Plaint, the Amended Plaint cannot be allowed to remain on record. It is therefore struck out.
12. Meanwhile, as the Amended Plaint was filed in court on 25th April 2017, and as it was served upon the applicant on 26th April 2017, it follows that a period of one year had not yet lapsed by the 4th of May 2017, when the applicant moved the court to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution.
13. In the event the application failed to meet the requirements of Order 17 Rule 2 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
14. I therefore reject the application seeking the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution.
15. As the application dated 4th May 2017 is partially successful, I order the plaintiff to pay the costs thereof to the applicant.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this13th dayof December2017.
FRED A. OCHIENG
JUDGE
Ruling read in open court in the presence of
Mrs. Koech for the Plaintiff
No appearance for the 1st Defendant
Mueke for the 2nd Defendant
Miss Matata for Kabora for the 3rd Defendant
No appearance for the 4th Defendant
No appearance for the 5th Defendant
Collins Odhiambo – Court clerk.