[2009] KEHC 403 (KLR)
The court found that although the amended plaint was filed outside the fourteen-day period prescribed by Order VIA Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the delay was due to a communication breakdown between the plaintiff and her advocates. The court exercised its discretion to extend the period for filing the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 403 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Gladys Agani Saiga; Defendant: The Agricultural Finance Corporation; Defendant: Eliud Sachida
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 13 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Plaint
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Locus Standi, Land Control Board Consent, Striking Out Pleadings
- 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
Gladys Agani Saiga
Plaintiff
The Agricultural Finance Corporation
Defendant
Eliud Sachida
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the amended plaint filed out of time should be struck out.
- 2 Whether the suit is frivolous, vexatious, or discloses no cause of action.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to bring the suit without letters of administration.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the amended plaint was filed outside the fourteen-day period prescribed by Order VIA Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the delay was due to a communication breakdown between the plaintiff and her advocates. The court exercised its discretion to extend the period for filing the amended plaint, deeming it duly filed within time. On the substantive issues, the court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not frivolous or vexatious. The questions of the plaintiff's locus standi and the requirement for Land Control Board consent were matters of evidence to be determined at trial, not at the interlocutory stage. Accordingly, the application to...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 9th June, 2009 is dismissed.
- The period for filing the amended plaint is extended; the amended plaint is deemed duly filed within time.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA
Civil Case 13 of 2007
GLADYS AGANI SAIGA................................................................PLAINTIFF
V E R S U S
THE AGRICULTURAL FINANCE COROPORATION........1ST DEFENDANT
ELIUD SACHIDA ..................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
In his application dated 9th June, 2009 the second defendant seeks orders that the plaint herein be struck out and the suit be dismissed with costs to the 2nd defendant. The application is brought under Order VI Rule 13 (b) and (d)of the Civil Procedure rules and is supported by the applicant’s affidavit sworn on 9th June, 2009.
Mr. Mbeja, counsel for the applicant submitted that the suit herein is vague, vexatious and frivolous. The plaintiff lacks capacity to bring this suit as she did not obtain a grant of letters of administration before filing the suit. Counsel further argued that the plaintiff was granted leave to amend the plaint and this was not done within 14 days. The original plaint does not have much chance of success. The suit touches an agricultural land and no land /control Board consent was obtained.
Mr. Ondieki, counsel for the plaintiff opposed the application and relied on the plaintiff’s replying affidavit sworn on 19th October, 2009. Counsel submitted that the Amended plaint was filed, served and a reply thereto was filed by the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff is an administrator and evidence will be adduced during the hearing of the case. Whether consent was granted by the Land Control Board will be determined after the matter is heard. Counsel contends that no period was fixed by the court to file the amended plaint.
On 11th December, 2008 Justice Fred Ochieng delivered a ruling whereby he allowed the plaintiff to amend her plaint and also dismissed the 2nd defendant’s application dated 28th May, 2007 seeking to strike out the plaint. No time was fixed within which the plaintiff was to file and serve the amended plaint. The plaintiff contends that her counsel used to write to her through the wrong address and this led to communication problem.
The record shows that the Amended plaint was filed on 16th June, 2009 and further court fees of KShs.70,075/= was paid on that date. This was six months after the order granting leave to amend was granted. Although no time limit was given by the court, Order VIA rule 6 states as follows:-
Where the court has made an order giving any party leave to amend, unless the 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.
From the above provision it follows that the Amended plaint was filed out of time. The only issue is whether it should be struck out. The reason for the delay is that there was communication breakdown between the plaintiff and her counsel. A letter from the plaintiff’s counsel dated 17th December, 2008 addressed to the plaintiff notified her of the order allowing the amendment of the plaint. The letter also called for the court fees of KShs.70,000/= to enable the filing of the amended plaint. An earlier letter dated 21st October from the plaintiff’s counsel notified the plaint of the date of the ruling on 11th December, 2008 and also called for the court filing fees. These two letters are attached to the supporting affidavit of the plaintiff’s Advocates in an application to withdraw from acting for the plaintiff due to lack of instructions. The application was filed on 20th April, 2009 and is pending in court.
From the above circumstances I am satisfied that there was communication breakdown between the plaintiff and her advocates. The Amended plaint was filed on 16th June, 2009 and court filing fees duly paid. I hereby extend the period for the filing of the amended plaint and the filed amended plaint shall be deemed to have been duly filed within time and the same shall apply to Reply and Defence to the Amended plaint filed on 2nd July, 2009.
The next issue is whether the suit is vexatious, vague and frivolous. The applicant contends that the plaintiff lacks locus standi to bring the suit and that no consent was granted by the Land Control Board. The plaintiff is seeking orders of injunction against the 1st defendant. She is also seeking 40 acres out of plot KAKAMEGA/SOY/215 or in the alternative payment of KShs.2,240,000/= plus interest. I do find that the plaint discloses a cause of action and the same is not frivolous or vexatious. Issues as to whether the plaintiff lacks locus standi are matters of evidence and the same applies for the issue whether there was consent from the concerned Land Control Board.
In the end, I do find that the application dated 9th June, 2009 lacks merit and the same is dismissed. Costs shall follow the outcome of the suit.
Delivered, Dated and Signed at Kakamega this 26th day of November, 2009
SAID J. CHITEMBWE
J U D G E