[1985] KEHC 128 (KLR)

[1985] KEHC 128 (KLR)

The court found that the original claim for vacant possession and mesne profits was fully satisfied when the defendant delivered possession and paid the agreed mesne profits up to 31st July, 1985. The application to amend the plaint was made nearly five years after the suit was filed, with no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The proposed amendment sought to introduce new claims and causes of action, including special damages and a higher rate of mesne profits, which were not part of the original suit and did not exist at the time of filing. The court held that under Order II rule 1 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a plaintiff cannot later sue for claims omitted in the original...

Citation
[1985] KEHC 128 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Patel; Defendant: Dr. J. S. Amin
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
31 July 1985
Case Number
Civil Case 159 of 1981
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Plaint and Amendment Application
Outcome
plaint and application for leave to amend struck out; costs awarded as specified
Legal Topics
Striking Out of Pleadings, Amendment of Pleadings, Mesne Profits, Jurisdiction of Rent Restriction Tribunal
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Striking Out of Pleadings Amendment of Pleadings Mesne Profits Jurisdiction of Rent Restriction Tribunal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patel

Plaintiff

Dr. J. S. Amin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Plaint and Amendment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be struck out as the subject matter had been satisfied by delivery of possession and payment of mesne profits.
  2. 2 Whether the application for leave to amend the plaint should be allowed despite delay and introduction of new claims.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction at the time of filing the suit or if it should have been before the Rent Restriction Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the original claim for vacant possession and mesne profits was fully satisfied when the defendant delivered possession and paid the agreed mesne profits up to 31st July, 1985. The application to amend the plaint was made nearly five years after the suit was filed, with no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The proposed amendment sought to introduce new claims and causes of action, including special damages and a higher rate of mesne profits, which were not part of the original suit and did not exist at the time of filing. The court held that under Order II rule 1 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a plaintiff cannot later sue for claims omitted in the original...

Court Disposition

plaint and application for leave to amend struck out; costs awarded as specified

Orders

  • The plaint is struck out.
  • The application for leave to amend the plaint is struck out.