[2020] KEELC 1128 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had established a sufficient basis for amending the plaint to enjoin the proposed 7th defendant, Kadian Wanyama, as a party to the suit. The court reasoned that the presence of the 7th defendant was necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of the issues, particularly...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 1128 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: George Khaemba Mumali; Defendant: George Semo Ndati; Defendant: Maurice Kundu; Defendant: Mike Onyango; Defendant: Enock Barasa; Defendant: Maritina Kundu; Defendant: Robert Lumbasi; Defendant: Kadian Wanyama
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 19 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Plaint and Enjoin 7th Defendant
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Amendment of Pleadings, Trespass, Injunctive Relief
- 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
George Khaemba Mumali
Plaintiff
George Semo Ndati
Defendant
Maurice Kundu
Defendant
Mike Onyango
Defendant
Enock Barasa
Defendant
Maritina Kundu
Defendant
Robert Lumbasi
Defendant
Kadian Wanyama
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Plaint and Enjoin 7th Defendant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the plaint to enjoin the 7th defendant.
- 2 Whether the presence of the proposed 7th defendant is necessary for the complete adjudication of the issues in dispute.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had established a sufficient basis for amending the plaint to enjoin the proposed 7th defendant, Kadian Wanyama, as a party to the suit. The court reasoned that the presence of the 7th defendant was necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of the issues, particularly as he had allegedly trespassed onto the suit land and was carrying out developments thereon. The application was unopposed, and there was no evidence of prejudice or injustice to the existing defendants that could not be compensated by costs. The court exercised its discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the guiding principles from appellate...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Leave to amend the plaint to enjoin the 7th defendant is granted.
- The 7th defendant be served with summons and the amended plaint within 15 days from the date of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
40 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT BUNGOMA
ELC CASE NO. 19 OF 2019
GEORGE KHAEMBA MUMALI...........................PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
GEORGE SEMO NDATI.................................1ST DEFENDANT
MAURICE KUNDU.........................................2ND DEFENDANT
MIKE ONYANGO...........................................3RD DEFENDANT
ENOCK BARASA...........................................4TH DEFENDANT
MARITINA KUNDU......................................5TH DEFENDANT
ROBERT LUMBASI......................................6TH DEFENDANT
KADIAN WANYAMA....................................7TH DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
What calls for my determination is the plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dated 17th July 2020 grounded on Order 1 Rule 3 and Order 2 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The plaintiff seeks the following orders: -
1: Spent
2: That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant leave to the plaintiff to amend the plaint and enjoin the 7th defendant in this suit.
3: That this Honourable Court be pleased to consider the amended plaint as properly filed.
4: That costs of this application be in the cause.
The application is anchored on the grounds set out therein and is also supported by the affidavit of GEORGE KHAEMBA MUMALI the plaintiff herein.
The gravamen of the application is that following the filing of this suit on 17th July 2020 in which the plaintiff seeks orders that the 1st to 6th defendants be injuncted from land parcels NO EAST BUKUSU/SOUTH KANDUYI/21675 and 21677(the suit land), a declaration that the said land belongs to the plaintiff and an order to evict the 1st to 6th defendants therefrom, one KADIAN WANYAMA (the proposed 7th defendant) has also trespassed onto the suit land on which he is carrying out development. It is therefore necessary to amend the plaint to enjoin him as a defendant.
When the application was placed before me on 20th July 2020, I directed that it be canvassed by way of written submissions and gave the plaintiff 14 days to serve the defendants who would have 14 days from the date of service to respond. I also directed that the ruling would be delivered on 1st October 2020 by way of electronic mail.
The record shows that ANWAR & CO ADVOCATES where duly served on behalf of the 7th defendant. As at the time the application was placed before me for purposes of drafting this ruling, no response had been filed by the defendants. This application is therefore not opposed.
Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides as follows: -
“The Court at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added.”
The Court enjoys a wide latitude in granting parties leave to amend their pleadings. In CENTRAL KENYA LTD .V. TRUST BANK LTD & OTHERS C.A CIVIL APPEAL NO 222 OF 1998 [2002 eKLR], the Court of Appeal stated as follows: -
“Hence the guiding principle in application for leave to amend is that all amendments should be freely allowed and at any stage of the proceedings, provided that the amendment or joinder, as the case may be, will not result in prejudice or injustice to the other party which cannot properly be compensated for in costs (see BECOCO LTD .V. ALFA LAVAL CO LTD 1994 4 ALL E R 464).”
If, as is averred by the plaintiff and which has not been rebutted, the proposed 7th defendant has trespassed onto the suit land, then it is important that he be enjoined in this suit because his presence is necessary to have the issues relating thereto effectually and completely adjudicated upon. Further, if the proposed 7th defendant is constructing on the suit land, then it is in his interest to be enjoined in this suit so that he can protect that interest and also to avoid orders that will affect him being made in his absence.
Ultimately therefore, I allow the plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dated 17th July 2020 in the following terms: -
1. Leave to amend the plaint to enjoin the 7th defendant is granted.
2. The 7th defendant be served with summons and the amended plaint within 15 days from the date of this ruling.
3. The 7th defendant shall have 15 days from the date of service of the amended plaint to file his defence.
4. No orders as to costs.
Boaz N. Olao.
J U D G E
1st October 2020.
Ruling dated, delivered and signed at BUNGOMA this 1st day of October 2020. The ruling is delivered by way of electronic mail in keeping with the COVID – 19 guidelines as was advised to the parties.
Boaz N. Olao.
J U D G E
1st October 2020.