[2012] KEHC 1873 (KLR)
The court held that amendments to pleadings should be freely allowed before judgment to ensure all real issues are determined and litigation is brought to an end. The plaintiff provided reasonable grounds for the amendment, namely the issuance of a new title to the defendants, which he seeks to challenge. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 1873 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: John Kiptoo Siren; Defendant: Charles K. Omboi; Defendant: Jeremiah Ontiri (Chairman, Iten Lands Tribunal, through Attorney General); Defendant: District Land Registrar, Iten
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 108 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Plaint
- Outcome
- Application for leave to amend plaint allowed.
- Judges
- AI Tullu, A Mshila
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Land Title Disputes, Declaratory Suits
- 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
John Kiptoo Siren
Plaintiff
Charles K. Omboi
Defendant
Jeremiah Ontiri (Chairman, Iten Lands Tribunal, through Attorney General)
Defendant
District Land Registrar, Iten
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the plaint to include a new title and an additional defendant.
- 2 Whether the proposed amendment would prejudice the defendants or amount to an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that amendments to pleadings should be freely allowed before judgment to ensure all real issues are determined and litigation is brought to an end. The plaintiff provided reasonable grounds for the amendment, namely the issuance of a new title to the defendants, which he seeks to challenge. The court found that the defendants would not suffer prejudice that could not be compensated by costs and would have the opportunity to amend their own pleadings. The application was therefore allowed, with the plaintiff directed to file and serve the amended plaint within 15 days, and costs to be in the cause.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to amend plaint allowed.
Orders
- Plaintiff granted leave to amend the plaint as per the amended plaint filed.
- Plaintiff to file and serve the amended plaint on all parties within 15 days from the date of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
Civil Suit 108 of 2005
JOHN KIPTOO SIREN……………………………………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CHARLES K. OMBOI
JEREMIAH ONTIRICHAIRMAN ITEN LANDS TRIBUNALTHROUGH ATTORNEY GENERAL………....…………………DEFENDANTS
RULING
By Chamber Summons Application dated 20th September 2007 the Plaintiff prays for the following orders:
1. That the Plaintiff be and is hereby granted leave to amend the Plaint as per the Amended Plaint filed herein.
2. That the Amended Plaint be deemed fully filed subject to payment of court fees if any.
3. That costs be provided for.
There is an affidavit in support of the Application sworn by James M. Kathili, Advocate for the Applicant.
The main grounds in support of the application are that the Plaintiff/Applicant was the sole owner of the parcel of land known as ELGEYO MARAKWET/IRONG/ITEN/520 measuring 0. 162 Hectares up to the 26th January 2006 when the 1st and 2nd Defendants obtained a new title for a portion measuring 0. 1 Hectares known as IRONG/ITEN/2528.
For this reason the Plaintiff wants the new title created that is No. IRONG/ITEN/2528 from the original parcel to be included in the Plaint. Also the Plaintiff wants to include a Fourth Defendant, the District Land Registrar, Iten.
The Application is opposed by way of a Replying Affidavit sworn by Jeremiah O. Otiri dated 2nd November 2007 on his own behalf and on behalf of the 1st Defendant. He states that the application is an afterthought and intended to prolong this matter. He avers that the amendment will not be of any use to the Plaintiff because he sold the ¼ acre comprised in the new title to the 1st Defendant and himself. In support he refers the court to the sale agreement in his previous affidavit dated 7/5/2007.
The Defendant further avers that a declaratory suit cannot cancel a title. That under the Government Proceedings Act all suits against Government is filed against the Attorney General and is improper to bring in the 4th Defendant when the attorney general is already a party to this suit. The Defendant states that the it is wrong for the advocate to depone to contested issues in support of the application.
The Plaintiff filed a supplementary affidavit dated 19th March 2008. He states that he has instructed his advocates to depone the supporting affavit to the application. He states that he did not know the change in the title until his advocates were served with the application dated 7th May 2007 seeking to strike out the suit.
The parties’ advocates presented their oral arguments on the 29th April 2009.
Mr. Sitima, Counsel representing the Hon. Attorney Generals on behalf of the 3rd Defendant submitted that he has no instructions from the Tribunal. He stated that they will abide by the Courts decision. The court made an order dispensing with his attendance on the understanding that the amendment shall not include the joinder of the District Land Registrar.
Counsel for the Plaintiff argued that he relies on the Plaintiff’s affidavits and the grounds in support of the application. He states that the Defendants obtained a new title IRONG/ITEN/2528. He submitted that the Defendants will not suffer any prejudice if the amendment is allowed.
Counsel for the Defendant Ms Kosgei in her submissions said that she relies on the relying affidavit of the 2nd Defendant. That this application is an afterthought to forestall the application to strike out. She states that the application is defective and brought under the wrong provisions of the law. That it amounts to abuse of the court process. She states that the property was sold to the Defendants. She urged the court to dismiss the application.
I have considered the application, affidavits and submission by counsel.
I would like to state that it is trite law that amendments of pleadings can be allowed at anytime before judgment. It is important that all real issues between the parties are brought before the court and determined to put an end to litigation.
This being a discretionary power the court will look at the reasons advanced by the Plaintiff for amendment and whether there will be prejudice to the Defendant. The Plaintiff in this case explained that there is a new title issued to the Defendant that is IRONG/ITEN/2528. That he wants this new title which formed part of the land he claims known as ELGEYO MARAKWET/IRONG/ITEN/520 be reflected in his pleadings.
The Defendant states that the application is an afterthought and aimed at forestalling their application to strike out.
I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to be granted leave to amend his pleadings. The Defendants will not such prejudice as can not be compensated by an award of costs. They will also have the right to amend their pleadings.
I therefore allow the Plaintiff’s application for amendment of his Plaint. The Plaintiff should file and serve on all the parties his amended plaint within 15 days from the date of this ruling. The costs of this application shall be in the cause.
Dated AND SIGNED at Nairobi this 23rd DAY OF AUGUST 2012.
M.K Ibrahim
Judge
DATED AND Delivered at Eldoret on this 26th day ofSeptember, 2012.
ABIGAIL MSHILA
JUDGE
In the presence of: Kathili for plaintiff
No appearance for defendant