[2007] KEHC 2279 (KLR)
The court held that, although Order 53 Civil Procedure Rules does not expressly provide for amendment of a Notice of Motion in judicial review proceedings, the court has inherent powers to allow such amendments in order to do justice. The court found that the amendment sought in this case was merely formal, seeking...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 2279 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jonathan Nzioka Mutiso; Respondent: Director of Pensions
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 97 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Regularize Amended Notice of Motion
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Procedure, Amendment of Pleadings, Inherent Powers of Court
- 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
Jonathan Nzioka Mutiso
Applicant
Director of Pensions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Regularize Amended Notice of Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court has inherent power to allow amendment of a Notice of Motion in judicial review proceedings despite the absence of express provision under Order 53 Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the proposed amendment, which only affects the form and not the substance of the application, would prejudice the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, although Order 53 Civil Procedure Rules does not expressly provide for amendment of a Notice of Motion in judicial review proceedings, the court has inherent powers to allow such amendments in order to do justice. The court found that the amendment sought in this case was merely formal, seeking to correct the title of the application to reflect the Republic as the applicant, and did not affect the substance of the proceedings. There was no prejudice to the respondent, and denying the amendment would risk the application being struck out on a technicality, contrary to the interests of justice. Accordingly, the court allowed the application to regularize the amended...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Prayers 1 and 2 of the Notice of Motion dated 13th March 2007 are granted.
- The applicant shall bear the costs of the Notice of Motion.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
MISC APPLI 97 OF 2005
JONATHAN NZIOKA MUTISO………………………...……….…….APPLICANT
Versus
DIRECTOR OF PENSIONS………………………………………RESPONDENT
RULING
By a Notice of Motion dated 13th March 2007, the Applicant seeks an order that the amended Notice of Motion dated 23rd March 2005 and filed in court on 30th March 2005 be deemed as duly filed and served and that costs be provided for. The Application is brought under the inherent powers of this court and supported by grounds found in the body of the Application and an affidavit of Ms Kingoo, an advocate who has conduct of this matter. She depones that she erroneously filed an amended Notice of Motion without seeking leave of the court and that the amendment sought only touch on the form of the Application but not the substance and will not be prejudicial to the Respondents. Counsel relied on the case of REP V THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HC MISC 447/05where the court held that the court has inherent powers to amend a Notice of Motion though it was not specifically provided for.
Ms Mwaniki, Counsel for the Respondent opposed the Application on grounds that Order 53 Civil Procedure Rules does not allow for amendment of the Notice of Motion and that even if that were so, notice should have been issued by the Applicant regarding the amendment.
Order 53 Civil Procedure Rules does not provide for amendment of a Notice of Motion. Order 53 4(2) Civil Procedure Rules only allows amendment of a Statutory Statement and the filing of further Affidavits with leave of the court, after notice has been duly issued to the court and the opposing parties. However despite there being no provision for amendment of a Notice of Motion, the courts have not sat back and folded their hands. They have invoked the inherent powers of the court and allowed situations which are not specifically provided for in order to do justice to the parties.
The courts have allowed for amendment of the Notice of Motion in the following cases:
1) R V P S MINISTRY OF PLANNING & NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1769/04where Justice Nyamu allowed an amendment if the Notice of Motion.
2) THE CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR ex parte JOSEPH MAINA HC MISC APPLICATION 803/04 where Wendoh and Emukule JJ allowed an amendment of the Notice of Motion. Similarly in the case cited before this court Ex parte JACOB JUMA;the court allowed amendment of a Notice of Motion
In all these cases and others, the court has invoked its inherent powers to amend the Notice of Motion in order to do justice.
In considering such an Application the court takes into account whether any prejudice will be suffered by the other parties to the proceedings. In this case what is sought to be amended is only the title of the Application so that the Republic is reflected as the Applicant in place of the ex parte Applicant. Judicial Review Applications are normally brought in the name of the Republic on behalf of the affected party who is the ex parte Applicant. In this case, the intended amendment only affects the form of the Application but not the substance. The Respondents will not suffer any prejudice by that amendment.
On the contrary if the Notice of Motion proceeds to hearing in the form in which it was filed, it is likely to be struck out and the Applicant would then be forced to file another Application if still within time or the matter would be finalised before the merits are considered due to a technicality.
The justice of this case dictates that the Application to amend be allowed so that the case proceeds to hearing on merit by having both parties substantively.
In the result, I grant prayers 1 and 2 of the Notice of Motion dated 13th March 2007. The Applicant bears the costs of the Notice of Motion.
Dated and delivered this 11th day of June 2007.
R.P.V. WENDOH
JUDGE
Read in Presence of:
Mr. Bosire holding brief for Mrs. Kigoo for Applicant
Daniel: Court Clerk