[2017] KEELC 87 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 87 (KLR)

The Court found that the dispute was between the Plaintiff and the County Government of Mombasa, and that the inclusion of 'The County Secretary' in the Defendant's name was an excusable mistake. The Court held that the Defendant had not demonstrated any prejudice that would result from allowing the amendment, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 87 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Jabess Oduor Mdhai; Defendant: County Secretary, County Government of Mombasa
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 244 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Plaint
Outcome
Application for leave to amend plaint allowed.
Judges
CK Yano
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder and Substitution of Parties, Trespass to Land
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Amendment of Pleadings Joinder and Substitution of Parties Trespass to Land

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jabess Oduor Mdhai

Plaintiff

County Secretary, County Government of Mombasa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Plaint

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the plaint to correct the name of the Defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the amendment would occasion prejudice or injustice to the Defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the initial naming of the Defendant was a genuine and excusable mistake.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the dispute was between the Plaintiff and the County Government of Mombasa, and that the inclusion of 'The County Secretary' in the Defendant's name was an excusable mistake. The Court held that the Defendant had not demonstrated any prejudice that would result from allowing the amendment, and that granting leave to amend would enable the suit to proceed against the proper party. The Court exercised its discretion to allow the amendment, emphasizing that such discretion must be exercised judiciously and that the Defendant could be compensated by costs. The application for leave to amend was therefore allowed, with costs awarded to the Defendant.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to amend plaint allowed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff granted leave to amend the plaint and file an amended plaint within 14 days of the ruling.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Defendant.