[2016] KEELC 1018 (KLR)

[2016] KEELC 1018 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had obtained new evidence regarding the subdivision of plot number 130, which was not available at the time of filing the suit. The defendant admitted that the original plot had ceased to exist and that new titles had been issued to third parties. Since the parties had not closed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELC 1018 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kachimbizi Katana Mwagandi & 384 Others; Defendant: Fort Properties Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 72 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Originating Summons
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Subdivision of Land
Source Language
en
Land and Property Adverse Possession Amendment of Pleadings Joinder of Parties Subdivision of 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kachimbizi Katana Mwagandi & 384 Others

Plaintiff

Fort Properties Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Originating Summons

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their Originating Summons to include all subdivisions arising from plot number 130 Malindi.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments would prejudice the defendant or affect third parties not currently joined in the suit.
  3. 3 Whether the inclusion of new portion numbers and parties is necessary for the complete determination of the issues.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had obtained new evidence regarding the subdivision of plot number 130, which was not available at the time of filing the suit. The defendant admitted that the original plot had ceased to exist and that new titles had been issued to third parties. Since the parties had not closed their cases and the inclusion of the new subdivisions and parties was necessary for the complete and effectual determination of the dispute, the court held that the amendments sought were justified. The court further found that the proposed amendments would not prejudice the defendant and that all affected parties should be joined to avoid multiplicity of suits and ensure a...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The application dated 13th September, 2015 is allowed as prayed.
  • The plaintiffs are ordered to file and serve the amended Originating Summons within 14 days from the date of this ruling.