[2006] KEHC 1831 (KLR)
The court held that the handwritten amendments to the case number and date in the defendant's replying affidavit were merely corrections of typographical errors and did not alter the substance or facts of the case. Such corrections are not material to the matters in dispute and do not prejudice the plaintiff. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1831 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kibiwott Tanui; Defendant: Lawrence Panyakoo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 235 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objections to Affidavit Amendments
- Outcome
- preliminary objections dismissed with costs to the defendant
- Judges
- AI Tullu
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Preliminary Objections, Typographical Errors, Inherent Jurisdiction
- 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
Kibiwott Tanui
Plaintiff
Lawrence Panyakoo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objections to Affidavit Amendments
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether handwritten amendments to the case number and date in the defendant's replying affidavit without leave of court render the affidavit invalid.
- 2 Whether such amendments constitute material changes to the pleadings or are merely typographical corrections.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the handwritten amendments to the case number and date in the defendant's replying affidavit were merely corrections of typographical errors and did not alter the substance or facts of the case. Such corrections are not material to the matters in dispute and do not prejudice the plaintiff. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to allow the corrections, deeming them duly made. The objections raised by the plaintiff were found to be frivolous and vexatious, especially given that the plaintiff was simultaneously seeking the court's discretion to allow amendment of the plaint. Accordingly, the preliminary objections were dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Court Disposition
preliminary objections dismissed with costs to the defendant
Orders
- The handwritten corrections to the case number and date in the defendant's replying affidavit are allowed and deemed duly corrected.
- The preliminary objections raised by the plaintiff are dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
Civil Case 235 of 2000
KIBIWOTT TANUI:.............................................................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
LAWRENCE PANYAKOO:........................................................................................DEFENDANT
RULING
The Plaintiff filed an application for leave to file the plaint dated 25th September, 2000. In response thereto, the Defendant filed a Replying affidavit sworn on 6th June, 2006.
At the hearing, the plaintiff’s Counsel took issue with the said Replying Affidavit and raised some preliminary objections as to its validity. He stated:-
- That case Number has been amended without leave of the court.
- That the date in paragraph 2 of the affidavit has been amended in claim without leave.
- that the application on record has never been served on the Petitioner.
I have considered the Preliminary issues raised. In my view, the objections raised relate to typographical errors which the Defendant has tried to correct by hand written amendments. Strictly, the Plaintiff is right that any amendments of any pleading or otherwise ought to be with the leave of the Court.
Be that as it may, the so-called amendments are truly corrections of typographical errors. They do not change the substance or facts. There can be no dispute regarding the case number and the date of the application by the Plaintiff. These are not material to the matters in dispute. They are not facts in the case. They are mere figures relating to the pleadings.
I see nothing wrong for a party to correct the number of the case by hand. The court Registry could also do it as matter of course. As regards the date of the application the Defendant changed the number 4 in 2004 to 5, to read 2005. This is the correct date.
In exercise of this court’s in inherent jurisdiction, I hereby allow the correction of the said case number and date and they are deemed as duly corrected. The objections raised herein are frivolous and vexatious and ought not be raised particularly when the party raising it, is before the court seeking the court’s exercise of its discretion to allow amendment of a pleading, in this case the plaint.
The objections are hereby dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET ON THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY 2006.
M.K. IBRAHIM
JUDGE