[2017] KEHC 6730 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had already been granted leave to amend the plaint on three previous occasions and failed to justify the delay or necessity for further amendment. The proposed amendments would fundamentally change the nature of the claim against the 1st defendant and introduce new particulars of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 6730 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Francis Gachango Kamau; Defendant: Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd.; Defendant: Hannan Wangui Mwangi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 931 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Further Amend Plaint and Transfer Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Negligence Claims
- 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
Francis Gachango Kamau
Plaintiff
Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd.
Defendant
Hannan Wangui Mwangi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Further Amend Plaint and Transfer Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to further amend the plaint as proposed.
- 2 Whether the proposed amendments would unfairly prejudice the 1st defendant by denying the defence of limitation.
- 3 Whether the delay in seeking further amendment is justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had already been granted leave to amend the plaint on three previous occasions and failed to justify the delay or necessity for further amendment. The proposed amendments would fundamentally change the nature of the claim against the 1st defendant and introduce new particulars of negligence, some of which could only be attributed to the now-deceased 2nd defendant. Allowing the amendment would unfairly prejudice the 1st defendant by denying the defence of limitation, as amendments relate back to the original filing date. The court concluded that there was no sufficient justification for the further amendment and that the application was without merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant
Orders
- The summons dated 11th April, 2016 is dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 931 OF 2005
FRANCIS GACHANGO KAMAU. ………………………..…..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KENYA POWER & LIGHTING CO. LTD. ………....….1ST DEFENDANT
HANNAN WANGUI MWANGI. …………..…….….….2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1) Francis Gachango Kamau, the Plaintiff herein, took out the summons dated 11th April, 2016 whereof he sought for the following orders: -
1. The Plaintiff be granted leave to further amend the plaint in the manner set out in the draft further amended plaint annexed to the support on affidavit.
2. That the draft further further further amended plain annexed herein be deemed to have been duly filed on time.
3. This suit be transferred to the Chief Magistrate’s Court.
4. The court do grant any other orders as it may deem necessary.
5. Costs of this application be in the cause.
2) The summons is supported by the affidavit of John. M. Chigiti. When served the 1st Defendant filed grounds of opposition to resist the summons. When the summons came up for inter partes hearing, learned counsels recorded a consent order to have the application disposed of by written submission.
3) I have considered the grounds stated on the face of the summons and the facts deponed in the supporting affidavit and the grounds of opposition. I have further considered the written submissions. It is the submission of the Plaintiff that there is need to further amend the plaint as proposed and that the Magistrates Act, 2015 donates pecuniary jurisdiction to the Chief Magistrate’s court. It is said that the proposed amendment will clearly capture the singular liability of the 1st Defendant now that the 2nd Defendant has passed on and her case having abated.
4) The Defendant is of the submission that the summons is an abuse of the court process having been given leave to amend the plaint more than three times. It is also pointed out that if the amendment is authorized it will have the effect of denying the 1st Defendant the defence of limitation.
5) I have carefully perused the proposed amended plaint. It is apparent that the application seeks to remove the 2ndDefendant’s name and to introduce new particulars of negligence. With great respect, I agree with the 1st Defendant’s submission that the proposed amendments shall completely alter the character of the claim against the1st Defendant. In my humble view, there is no justification for the delay or failure by the Plaintiff to get its case right from the outset having been given three other amendments.
6) A careful perusal of the record will reveal that the Plaintiff failed to take action early enough to prevent the 2nd Defendant’s case from abating. I am convinced that the introduction of the new particulars is prejudicial to the extent that, the 1st Defendant is accused of negligence even in instances where the same would be attributable to the 2ndDefendant, now deceased. It is trite law that the amendment of the pleadings relates back to the claim to the first date of filing and in effect denies the 1stDefendant, the defence of limitation.
7) In the end and on the basis of the above grounds the summons dated 11th April, 2016 is found to be without merit. It is dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant.
Dated, Signed and Delivered in open court this 10th day of March, 2017.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
............................................................. for the Plaintiff
.........................................................for the Defendant