[2003] KEHC 903 (KLR)

[2003] KEHC 903 (KLR)

The court held that the amended plaint was filed out of time in violation of the consent order, and neither the court nor the parties had discretion to vary the terms of the consent without proper grounds such as fraud or mistake. The Senior Resident Magistrate erred in allowing the amended plaint to stand, as there...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] KEHC 903 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Fidelity Security Ltd.; Respondent: John Onyiengo Ogwang
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
4 January 2003
Case Number
? 549 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Consent Orders, Limitation Periods, Striking Out Pleadings
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Amendment of Pleadings Consent Orders Limitation Periods Striking Out Pleadings

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fidelity Security Ltd.

Appellant

John Onyiengo Ogwang

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended plaint filed out of time pursuant to a consent order should be struck out.
  2. 2 Whether the original plaint was filed within the statutory limitation period and should remain on record.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the amended plaint was filed out of time in violation of the consent order, and neither the court nor the parties had discretion to vary the terms of the consent without proper grounds such as fraud or mistake. The Senior Resident Magistrate erred in allowing the amended plaint to stand, as there was no basis for extending the time. However, the original plaint was filed within the limitation period applicable to contractual claims and should remain on record, allowing the respondent to pursue his claim on that basis. The appeal therefore succeeded in part: the amended plaint was struck out, but the original plaint was not.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • The amended plaint filed on 11th May 1999 is struck out for being filed out of time.
  • The original plaint remains on record for the respondent to pursue his claim if he wishes.