[2017] KEHC 5386 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 5386 (KLR)

The court found that the defendants' application for leave to amend the defence and counterclaim was brought after an inordinate delay of over three years and five months from the date of the original pleading. The explanation provided for the delay was not plausible, as the relevant documents had been available to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 5386 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Gulf African Bank Limited; Defendant: Bactlab Limited; Defendant: Hussein Ahmed Farah; Defendant: Sofia Assali; Defendant: Grefory Smaragdis; Defendant: Farah Mohamed Awad
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 340 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Defence and Counterclaim
Outcome
application for leave to amend defence and counterclaim disallowed with costs to the plaintiff
Judges
F Tuiyott
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Fraud Pleadings, Delay in Application
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions Fraud Pleadings Delay in Application

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gulf African Bank Limited

Plaintiff

Bactlab Limited

Defendant

Hussein Ahmed Farah

Defendant

Sofia Assali

Defendant

Grefory Smaragdis

Defendant

Farah Mohamed Awad

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Defence and Counterclaim

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should be granted leave to amend their defence and counterclaim before hearing.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in seeking amendment is inordinate and prejudicial to the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the proposed amendment would deprive the plaintiff of a limitation defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants' application for leave to amend the defence and counterclaim was brought after an inordinate delay of over three years and five months from the date of the original pleading. The explanation provided for the delay was not plausible, as the relevant documents had been available to the defendants at the time of filing their original pleadings. The proposed amendments sought to introduce causes of action in tort, specifically fraud and false misrepresentation, which are subject to a three-year limitation period. Allowing the amendment at this stage would prejudice the plaintiff by depriving it of a limitation defence. The court held that such inordinate...

Court Disposition

application for leave to amend defence and counterclaim disallowed with costs to the plaintiff

Orders

  • The application dated 5th March 2015 for leave to amend the defence and counterclaim is disallowed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the plaintiff.