https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3080

Langat v Kilele (Sued as the legal representative of the Estate of the Late Tapnyobi Maiga) & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E018 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3080 (KLR) (21 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3080 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Bomet Environment and Land Case E018 of 2026 LA Omollo, J May 21, 2026 Between Richard Cheruiyot Langat Plaintiff and Joseph Kibisio Kilele (Sued As The Legal Representative Of The Estate Of The Late Tapnyobi Maiga) 1st Defendant Land Registrar, Bomet County 2nd Defendant Frankline Kiplagat Bett 3rd Defendant Ruling 1.This ruling is in respect of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Notice of Motion application dated 4th November, 2025. The application is expressed to be brought under Articles 156 & 159 of the Constitution, Sections 3 & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 8 Rule 3, 3(5) and Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 2.The application seeks the following orders;a.Spentb.That the Defendants (sic) be granted leave to amend their Amended plaint 17th March 2020, as per the Draft Amended-Amended Plaint Annexed hereto. (sic)c.That the Draft Amended-Amended Plaint (sic) Annexed hereto be deemed as the Plaintiff's Amended-Amended Plaint (sic) duly filed and served upon the payment of requisite Court fees.d.That the Defendants be at liberty to further amend their amended defences within 14 days thereafter if they so wish.e.That the Plaintiffs (sic) be at liberty to file Replies to the Defendants amended Defences within seven days of service of the said amended Defences.f.That the Defendants be allowed to file a supplementary list of documents and witnesses where necessary.g.That the costs of this application be costs in the cause (sic). 3.The application is based on the grounds on its face and the supporting affidavit of the Plaintiff/Applicant that is sworn on 4th November, 2025. Factual Background. 4.The Plaintiff/Applicant commenced the present proceedings vide the Plaint dated 19th November, 2013 which Plaint was amended on 17th March, 2020. The Plaintiff/Applicant seeks the following prayers;a.A declaration that the parcel of land known as Kericho/Silibwet/1428 belongs to the Plaintiff.b.That there be a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants by herself (sic), sons and/or servants, assigns, tenants and all who claim under as through her (sis) from entering, occupying, possessing, using, accessing, trespassing onto, or in any way howsoever interfering with the Plaintiff peaceful uninterrupted and exclusive use, enjoyment and possession of the property known as Kericho/Silibwet/1428. (sic)c.Costs of this suit.d.Any other relief that this Court may deem fit and just to grant.e.Eviction of Frankline Kiplangat Bett and demolition of temporary and permanent structure he has constructed on Kericho/Silibwet/1428.f.Permanent injunction preventing all the Defendants, their agents and or assigns from any further trespass and/or re-entering into Kericho/Silibwet/1428 the property f (sic) the Applicant. 5.The 1st Defendant/Respondent filed a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated 11th December, 2013 which was amended on 14th December, 2017. The 1st Defendant/Respondent seeks the following orders in the Counterclaim;a.An order of permanent injunction barring the Plaintiff now 1st Defendant by himself, servants, agents and or any person claiming through him from selling, leasing, charging, wasting, trespassing onto, invading, cultivating, occupying and/or entering into, erecting any structure and or otherwise dealing with land parcel Kericho/Silibwet/1428.b.A declaration that the registration of the land parcel No. Kericho/Silibwet/1428 in the name of the Plaintiff now 1st Defendant is a nullity.c.An order directing the 2nd Defendant the Land Registrar to rectify the land register by deleting the Plaintiff now 1st Defendant and inserting the name of the Defendant now Plaintiff as the legal owner.d.An order for the cancellation of the 1st Defendant’s title over Kericho/Silibwet/1428.e.An order directing the 2nd Defendant to issue the Defendant now Plaintiff a Certificate of Lease over Kericho/Silibwet/1428.f.Costs of this Defence and Counterclaim. 6.The 2nd Defendant/Respondent filed a Statement of Defence to the Counterclaim wherein it denies the averments in therein and then seeks that the Counterclaim be dismissed with costs. 7.The 3rd Defendant/Respondent filed a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated 5th October, 2023 where he seeks the following prayers;a.A declaration that the registration of the land parcel Kericho/Silibwet/1428 in the name of the Plaintiff now Defendant is a nullity.b.An order for cancellation of the Plaintiff now Defendant’s title over land parcel Kericho/Silibwet/1428.c.Costs of the Defence and Counterclaim. 8.The application under consideration first came up for hearing on 6th November, 2025 when the Court issued directions that it be canvassed by way of written submissions. 9.It was mentioned severally to confirm filing of submissions and on 25th February, 2026 it was reserved for ruling. The Plaintiff/Applicant’s Contention. 10.The Plaintiff/Applicant contends that he commenced the present proceedings vide the Plaint dated 19th November, 2013. 11.The Plaintiff/Applicant also contends that at the time of institution of the suit he was the registered owner of land parcel No. Kericho/Silibwet/1428. 12.The Plaintiff/Applicant further contends that he amended the Plaint on 17th March, 2020 after the 1st Defendant/Respondent amended his Statement of Defence and Counterclaim. 13.It is the Plaintiff/Applicant’s contention that he has been advised by his advocates on record that as this suit was pending in Court, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Respondents altered the course of action and goes on to state that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Respondents committed illegal and unprocedural actions on 6th August, 2025. 14.It is also the Plaintiff/Applicant’s contention that upon making the said discovery, he instructed his advocates to file the application dated 24th September, 2025 which application was by consent allowed on 9th October, 2025. 15.It is further the Plaintiff/Applicant’s contention that it was agreed by the parties that the 2nd Defendant/Respondent will correct the register and restore the registration of the suit parcel of land to his name. 16.He contends that the 2nd Defendant/Respondent deleted entry No’s 3, 4 and 5 on the green card of the suit parcel of land which had the effect of changing the course of action. He goes on to state that the new owner of the suit parcel of land is now Kipkilel Arap Maiga (Deceased). 17.He also contends that the 2nd Defendant/Respondent’s actions have necessitated the filing of the present application which seeks leave to amend the Plaint. He goes on to state that the application under consideration has been filed under Order 8 Rule 3(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules. 18.He further contends that the proposed amendments will not prejudice the Defendants/Respondents in any way as they will have the opportunity to amend their pleadings. 19.It is his contention that he has filed the application under consideration in a timely manner and adds that the application has been filed one month after he discovered that alterations had been made on the green card by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Respondents. 20.He ends his deposition by stating that he has filed the application under consideration in good faith and that it is in the interest of justice that it be allowed as prayed. 1st Defendant/Respondent’s Response. 21.In response to the Plaintiff/Applicant’s application, the 1st Defendant/Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 18th January, 2026. 22.He deposes that the amendments sought by the Plaintiff/Applicant are an afterthought. He goes on to state that the grounds upon which the application has been brought are similar to the grounds the application dated 24th September, 2025 was premised on. 23.He also deposes that the application dated 24th September, 2025 was compromised and the 2nd Defendant/Respondent directed to correct the green card to reflect the position it was before 6th August, 2025. 24.He further deposes that the 2nd Defendant/Respondent complied with the orders of the Court and adds that the alleged new owner’s name appears on the green cards attached to the affidavit in support of the application and marked “RCL-1” and “RCL-6”. 25.It is his deposition that the issue of an alleged new owner is not a ground that would justify reopening the issues through the amendment of the Plaint. 26.It is also his deposition that the consent entered into by the parties has not been set aside and/or varied and goes on to state that the Plaintiff/Applicant’s application is aimed at undermining the said consent. 27.It is further his deposition that the Plaintiff/Applicant was subject of a criminal investigation and was charged in Kericho CM Criminal Case No. 2494 of 2013. 28.He deposes that they sought the assistance of the Office of the Director of Criminal Investigations – Bomet who informed them that they were not able to trace the relevant documents and the outcome of their investigations because the said documents were forwarded by their predecessor to the Kericho Criminal Registry. 29.He also deposes that the proposed amendments seek to introduce facts which have not been verified and goes on to state that allowing the said amendments at this stage of the proceedings will be premature and prejudicial to him. 30.He further deposes that the Plaintiff/Applicant’s application is strategically designed to reopen settled grounds and shift the goal posts. He goes on to state that he prepared his Statement of defence based on the compromised application and the status quo it restored. 31.It is his deposition that if the Court allows the Plaintiff/Applicant to make the amendments sought he will be prejudiced. 32.He ends his deposition by stating that the Plaintiff/Applicant’s application is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the Court process. The 2nd Defendant/Respondent’s Response. 33.In response to the Plaintiff/Applicant’s application, the 2nd Defendant/Respondent filed Grounds of Opposition dated 27th January, 2026. They are as follows;a.That the Application is an afterthought made in bad faith and violates Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, since it is intended to delay the timely determination of the dispute.b.That the Application is prejudicial to the 2nd Respondent, who is being held hostage by the lethargy of the Applicant in proceeding with the case. This suit has not taken off for thirteen years. (sic) If the further amendment is allowed, it will reopen the pleadings and cause additional delay.c.That the Application seeks to introduce a new cause of action against the 2nd Defendant, which was duly addressed on 9th October 2025, after the Honourable Court reaffirmed orders of status quo.d.That the proposed amendments are similar to the orders sought in the Application dated 24th September, 2025, which was compromised on 9th October, 2025.e.That the proposed amendments have the effect of changing the character of the Plaintiff's pleaded case and/or the effect of denying the Defendant an accrued defence hence prejudicial to the Defendant(sic). The 3rd Defendant/Respondent’s Response. 34.In response to the Plaintiff/Applicant’s application, the 3rd Defendant/Respondent filed Grounds of Opposition dated 20th January, 2026. 35.They are as follows;a.The application is an abuse of Court process and the Applicant is buying time in an attempt to defeat ends of justice. (sic)b.The Applicants (sic) in their grounds for making the application lack merit since at the inception of the suit the parcel did belong to Kipkilel Miaga(sic) and the alleged obtained ownership by the plaintiff was never legalized.(sic)c.That the Applicant had all the time to carry out due diligence at the time of instituting the suit and even before the closure of pleadings hence the current application is waste (sic) of this Honourable courts time.d.There is no illegality committed by the 2nd Respondent except that which has since existed in the records of Estate of Kipkilel Maiga his grandfather.e.The application is frivolous, vexatious and intended to embarrass the Court process.f.In the interest of justice, the application herein be dismissed with costs. Issues for Determination. 36.The 1st Defendant/Respondent filed his submissions on 28th January, 2026 while the Plaintiff/Applicant, the 2nd Defendant/Respondent and the 3rd Defendant/Respondent filed their submissions on 24th February, 2026. The Plaintiff/Applicant’s Submissions. 37.The Plaintiff/Applicant reiterates the averments in the affidavit in support of the application, relies on Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, Sections 1A & 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 8 Rule 3(1), (2), (3), (4) & (5) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the judicial decisions of Shah & another vs Govani; Jaff (Third Party) (Environment and Land Case 1468 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 7989 (KLR) (19TH November, 2025) (Ruling), Gladys Nduku Nthuki vs Letshego Kenya Limited; Mueni Charles Maingi (Intended Plaintiff) [2022] KEHC 2227 (KLR) and submits that his application meets the criteria for amendment of pleadings as was set out in the above cited judicial decisions. 38.While reiterating the averments in the affidavit in support of the application, the Plaintiff/Applicant submits that he has filed the application under consideration before the suit is set down for hearing. 39.The Plaintiff/Applicant concludes his submissions by urging the Court to allow his application as prayed. The 1st Defendant/Respondent’s Submissions. 40.The 1st Defendant/Respondent submits on the following issues;a.Whether the application herein has merit?b.Who should bear costs of the application? 41.On the first issue, the 1st Defendant/Respondent submits that proposed amendments will introduce a new cause of action. 42.The 1st Defendant/Respondent reiterates the averments in his Replying Affidavit, relies on the judicial decisions of Kandara Residents Association & 4 others v Del Monte (K) Ltd & 4 others [2023] KEELC 19325 (KLR), Central Kenya Ltd (sic) (citation not given) and submits that the proposed amendments are based on the consent order and they do not therefore clarify the real issues in dispute. 43.It is the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s submissions that the proposed amendments do not meet the legal threshold set out in law. 44.It is also the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s submissions that the application under consideration is meant to delay the hearing of this suit as it was filed thirteen years ago and yet it has never been set down for hearing. 45.The 1st Defendant/Respondent concludes his submissions by urging the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff/Applicant’s application with costs. The 2nd Defendant/Respondent’s submissions. 46.The 2nd Defendant/Respondent submits on the following issues;a.Whether the orders seeking leave to further amend the Plaint are merited.b.Costs of the application. 47.On the first issue, the 2nd Defendant/Respondent relies on Order 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the judicial decisions of Mbaru & 111 others vs Nchoe & Others (citation not given), Joseph Tireiti vs Jacob Kipsugot Arap Lagate & another (citation not given), Anyega (Suing as Legal Administrators of the Late John Kiriago Sangaka) v Ruitha & 2 others; Ruitha & another (Plaintiffs to the Counterclaim); Anyega (Suing as Legal Administrators of the Late John Kiriago Sangaka) & 3 others (Defendant to the Counterclaim) [2025] KEELC 6304 (KLR) and submits that the Plaintiff/Applicant filed the present suit on 19th November, 2013. 48.The 2nd Defendant/Respondent also submits that the Plaintiff/Applicant amended his Plaint on 17th March, 2020. 49.The 2nd Defendant/Respondent further submits that the 1st Defendant/Respondent amended his Statement of Defence and Counterclaim to include him. 50.It is the 2nd Defendant/Respondent’s submissions that in the “Amended Amended Plaint” attached to the affidavit in support of the application, the Plaintiff/Applicant contends that the cause of action against him arose in August, 2025. 51.It is also the 2nd Defendant/Respondent’s submissions that the set of facts alleged against him have been overtaken by the events of 9th October, 2025 when the Court reaffirmed the status quo orders issued on 5th December, 2017. 52.It is further the 2nd Defendant/Respondent’s submissions that the alleged cause of action against him does not exist. 53.The 2nd Defendant/Respondent relies on Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules and reiterates that the proposed amendments do not disclose a reasonable cause of action. 54.The 2nd Defendant/Respondent submits that the fraud particularized therein has been overtaken by events and he has complied with the Court’s directions. 55.The 2nd Defendant/Respondent also submits that the Plaintiff/Applicant’s application is delaying the hearing and determination of this suit which has been pending for over thirteen years. 56.The 2nd Defendant/Respondent further submits that the Plaintiff/Applicant’s application is an abuse of the Court process and he concludes his submissions, by urging the Court to dismiss the application with costs. The 3rd Defendant/Respondent’s Submissions. 57.The 3rd Defendant/Respondent submits that the power to amend pleadings is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously. 58.The 3rd Defendant/Respondent relies on the judicial decision of Maranga v Mwangi & 2 others [2024] KEELC 3453 (KLR) and submits that an application for amendment of pleadings must be made timeously, in good faith and should not unfairly prejudice the other parties. 59.The 3rd Defendant/Respondent also submits that the Plaintiff/Applicant has had ample opportunity to conduct due diligence and address any defects in his pleadings. 60.The 3rd Defendant/Respondent further submits that the Plaintiff/Applicant has filed the application under consideration several years after the suit was instituted and the application is therefore meant to delay, frustrate and prejudice their right to a fair and timely determination of the dispute. 61.It is the 3rd Defendant/Respondent’s submissions that the Plaintiff/Applicant has not given a reasonable and/or satisfactory explanation for the delay which therefore militates against the grant of leave. 62.The 3rd Defendant/Respondent relies on the judicial decisions of Daniel Ngetich & anor vs K-Rep Bank Limited [2013]eKLR, Bosire Ogero & Royal Media Services [2015]eKLR and submits that Courts have held that amendments allowed at a late stage without adequate explanations place opposing parties at a disadvantage especially where they have to reframe their statements of defence. 63.The 3rd Defendant/Respondent relies on the judicial decision of Elbi Homes Limited v Laura & 2 others [2023] KEELC 18757 (KLR) and submits that amendment of pleadings should not be a vehicle to ventilate new issues where such issues existed at the time of filing the original plaint but were not pursued diligently. 64.The 3rd Defendant/Respondent concludes his submissions by urging the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff/Applicant’s application as it is an abuse of the Court process and it will prejudice the Defendants/Respondents. Analysis and Determination. 65.I have considered the Plaintiff/Applicant’s application, the responses thereto and the rival submissions. It is my view that the following issues arise for determination;a.Whether the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Notice of Motion application dated 4th November, 2025 has merit.b.Who should bear costs of the application. A. Whether the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Notice of Motion application dated 4th November, 2025 has merit. 66.The Plaintiff/Applicant is seeking leave to further amend the Plaint dated 17th March, 2020. 67.On the grounds on the face of the application, the Plaintiff/Applicant contends that at the time of institution of the suit, he was the registered proprietor of land parcel No. Kericho/Silibwet/1428. 68.The Plaintiff/Applicant also contends that on 6th August, 2025, the 2nd Defendant/Respondent registered the suit parcel of land in the name of the 3rd Defendant/Respondent. 69.The Plaintiff/Applicant further contends that he filed the application dated 24th September, 2025 and on 9th October, 2025, the 2nd Defendant/Respondent was directed to delete entry No’s 3, 4 and 5 of the Green Card of the suit parcel of land. 70.It is the Plaintiff/Applicant’s contention that upon cancellation of the said entries, entry No’s 1 and 2 of the green card show that the land is now registered in the name of Kipkilel Arap Maiga (Deceased). 71.It is also the Plaintiff/Applicant’s contention that this has necessitated him to file the application under consideration seeking leave to amend the Plaint. 72.In response, the 1st Defendant/Respondent contends that the application under consideration is an afterthought, aimed at undermining the consent entered into by the parties on 9th October, 2025 and will therefore prejudice him. 73.The 2nd Defendant/Respondent also contends that the Plaintiff/Applicant’s application will prejudice him. It is the 2nd Defendant/Respondent’s contention that the amendments the Plaintiff/Applicant intends to introduce are on issues that were addressed by the Court on 9th October, 2025 when it re-affirmed the orders of status quo. 74.It is also the 2nd Defendant/Respondent’s contention that the proposed amendments introduce a new cause of action and are similar to the orders sought in the application dated 24th September, 2025. 75.The 3rd Defendant/Respondent contends that he will be prejudiced if the Court allows the Plaintiff/Applicant to amend the Plaint as he will have to reframe his Statement of Defence in light of the new claims. 76.Order 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides as follows;“(1)Subject to Order 1, rules 9 and 10, Order 24, rules 3, 4, 5 and 6 and the following provisions of this rule, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, on such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be just and in such manner as it may direct, allow any party to amend his pleadings.(2)Where an application to the Court for leave to make an amendment such as is mentioned in subrule (3), (4) or (5) is made after any relevant period of limitation current at the date of filing of the suit has expired, the Court may nevertheless grant such leave in the circumstances mentioned in any such subrule if it thinks just so to do.(3)An amendment to correct the name of a party may be allowed under subrule (2) notwithstanding that it is alleged that the effect of the amendment will be to substitute a new party if the Court is satisfied that the mistake sought to be corrected was a genuine mistake and was not misleading or such as to cause any reasonable doubt as to the identity of the person intending to sue or intended to be sued.(4)An amendment to alter the capacity in which a party sues (whether as plaintiff or as defendant by counterclaim) may be allowed under subrule (2) if the capacity in which the party will sue is one in which at the date of filing of the plaint or counterclaim, he could have sued.(5)An amendment may be allowed under subrule (2) notwithstanding that its effect will be to add or substitute a new cause of action if the new cause of action arises out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as a cause of action in respect of which relief has already been claimed in the suit by the party applying for leave to make the amendment.” 77.In the judicial decision of St. Patrick’s Hill School Limited v Bank of Africa Kenya Limited [2018] KEHC 2539 (KLR) the Court held as follows;“21.A wider footage on the same issue was given in a more recent case of Ochieng and Others v First National Bank of Chicago Civil Appeal Number 147 of 1991 the Court of Appeal clearly set out the principles under which Courts may grant leave to amend the pleadings. The same is as follows:a)the power of the Court to allow amendments is intended to determine the true substantive merits of the case;b)the amendments should be timeously applied for;c)power to amend can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the proceedings;d)that as a general rule however late the amendment is sought to be made it should be allowed if made in good faith provided costs can compensate the other side;e)the plaintiff will not be allowed to reframe his case or his claim if by an amendment of the plaint the Defendant would be deprived of his right to rely on limitations Act subject however to powers of the Court to still allow and amendment notwithstanding the expiry of current period of limitation.” (Emphasis mine) 78.The Plaintiff/Applicant has attached to the affidavit in support of the application an “Amended Amended Plaint”. Paragraphs 10D and 10 E are some of the proposed amendments and they are as follows;“10D.The Plaintiff avers he recently learned in August 2025 that the 3rd Defendant instituted a second succession cause being Bomet Succession Cause No. E009 of 2024 Estate of Kipkilel Arap Maiga over the 1st registered owner of the suit parcel Kiplel (sic) Arap Maiga, who was Tapnyobi Maiga’s husband, and obtained a certificate of confirmation of grant which he used to transmit the title of LR Kericho/Silibwet/1428 to his name.10E.The Plaintiff avers that the suit parcel was registered in his name until September, 2025 when the 2nd and 3rd Defendants fraudulently transferred the suit land parcel number LR Kericho/Silibwet/1428 to the 3rd Defendant’s name…” 79.The Plaintiff/Applicant then sets out particulars of fraud against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Respondents. 80.Further, the proposed amendments introduces prayers (g) and (h) which are as follows;“(g)A declaration that the actions of the 2nd Defendant to erase/delete the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th original entries as per the copy of the register certified and issued on 19/09/2013 are illegal, null and void.(h)An Court (sic) compelling the 2nd Defendant to revert the ownership of the Plaintiff as the registered proprietor of the suit land parcel LR Kericho/Silibwet/1428.” 81.It is not disputed that the Plaintiff/Applicant filed a Notice of Motion application dated 24th September, 2025. In the said application, he sought the following prayers;a.This application be certified as extreme (sic) urgent and its service be dispensed with in the first instance.b.This Honourable Court be pleased to issues (sic) temporary orders of injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in persons (sic) and or through their agents from transferring, selling, leasing out and or construction of permanent structures and or alienating the subject matter Kericho/Silibwet/1428 in any other way pending hearing and determination of this application.c.This Honourable Court be pleased to issues (sic) grant leave to the Applicant to institute contempt of Court proceedings against the 1st 2nd and 3rd Respondents jointly and severally for acting in contempt, contradiction and contravention of the Court orders issued on 5/12/2017 of maintaining the status quo.d.This Honourable Court be pleased to so hold the 1st 2nd and 3rd Respondents jointly in contempt and commit them to civil (sic) for being in open contempt, contradiction and contravention of the Court orders issued on 5/12/2017 and or they be ordered to purge the contempt of Court on terms this Court will deem just.e.This Honourable Court be pleased to issues (sic) temporary orders of injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in persons and or through their agents from transferring, selling, leasing out and or construction of permanent structures and or alienating the subject matter Kericho/Silibwet/1428 in any other way pending hearing and determination of this suit.f.This Honourable Court be pleased to issue mandatory orders to nullify the entries number 4 and 5 on the register of Kericho/Silibwet/1428 which transferred ownership of the said land to the 3rd Defendant during the pendency of this suit particularly on 6th August 2025 and revert the ownership to the Plaintiff in-tandem with the cause of action in this suit.g.Costs of this application be provided for to the Applicant. 82.The application was premised on the grounds that on 6th August, 2025, the 2nd Defendant/Respondent registered the 3rd Defendant/Respondent as the owner of land parcel No. Kericho/Silibwet/1428 notwithstanding the fact that and/or in complete disregard of the fact that on 5th December, 2017, the Court had issued orders of status quo. 83.A perusal of the Court record shows that the said application came up for hearing on 1st October, 2025 when the Court directed that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Respondents appear in Court on 9th October, 2025. 84.On 9th October, 2025, the Court ordered as follows;“The application dated 24th September, 2025 is hereby compromised in the following terms;The Register for Kericho/Silibwet/1428 shall be rectified to reflect the position before 6th August, 2025 and there shall be no further dealings on the said register pending the hearing and determination of this suit.This order is made after hearing the submissions by the Land Registrar and the 3rd Defendant who have appeared before me this morning in honour of the summons issued by this Court on 1st October, 2025.” 85.It is evident that the grounds upon which the application dated 24th September, 2025 was filed, consist of the proposed amendments in the draft “Amended Amended Plaint” which is attached to the affidavit in support of the application. 86.It is also evident that after the Court issued the orders of 9th October, 2025 the Green card of the suit parcel of land was rectified. The Plaintiff now seeks to amend the Plaint to include prayers (g) and (h). 87.The proposed amendment under prayer (g) is for a declaration that the 2nd Defendant/Respondent actions of deleting entry No’s 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the green card were null and void while prayer (h) seeks for an order to compel the 2nd Defendant/Respondent to revert the ownership of the suit parcel of land to the Plaintiff. 88.Essentially, that which the instant application seeks to amend was already taken care of by the order of this Court issued on 9th October, 2025. I find, therefore, that the proposed amendments are unnecessary. 89.I feel obligated to comment on previous amendments of the Plaint and the annexture to the instant application. 90.The Plaintiff filed a Plaint dated 19th November, 2019 which Plaint was amended on 17th March, 2020. The Plaintiff/Applicant, through the instant application, now seeks to further amend the Plaint. It follows that the Plaintiff ought to have attached a “Draft Further Amended Plaint” but what has been attached to the affidavit in support of the application is titled “Amended Amended Plaint”. 91.In the judicial decision of Co-operative Insurance Company of Kenya Limited v Paem Agencies Company Limited [2014] KEHC 8718 (KLR) the Court held as follows;“15.The pleading attached to the Plaintiff’s application and marked as “LM 2” was headed “Plaint.” The procedure under Order 8 Rule 7 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 requires a plaintiff to strike out in red all deleted words when amending its plaint. It would follow therefore that there would be two (2) Plaints on record if the Court was to allow the application herein.16.The courts have moved from the era in which litigants would file pleadings without regard to procedure and term the same as mere technicalities-See Cole v Ravenshear (1907) CA) and Shashikant C Patel v Oriental Commercial Bank (Supra).17.Any pleadings and or documents relied upon by the parties should be self-explanatory. The Court finds that the issue of the underlining of the amended parts in red and the heading of the draft pleading is not a procedural technicality that could be saved by the provisions of Article 159(2) (d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Rather it is a fundamental error that goes into the root of the Plaintiff’s application as it sought that the Amended Plaint be filed and served in terms of the draft Amended Plaint.18.The question that arises is how the Defendant will refer to its response bearing in mind that it had already filed a Statement of Defence. This Court made similar observations in the case of HCCC No 1135 of 2001 Peter G.N. Ng’ang’a & Another vs Kenya Finance Bank Limited (In liquidation, Liquidating Agent(2014) eKLR when it dismissed the applicant’s application for the reason that the proposed pleading to be amended had not been headed “Amended Plaint.”19.The Court does not look kindly at parties who do not adhere and follow the laid down procedures and rules. For the reason that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the provisions of Order 8 Rule 7 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, its application would not succeed.” (Emphasis mine) 92.In the above cited judicial decision, the Court held that the issue of underlining of the amended parts of a pleading in red and the heading of a draft pleading is not a procedural technicality. The Court also held that it is a fundamental error which goes to the root of an application. 93.In the present suit, instead of the Plaintiff/Applicant titling the pleading to be amended as a “Draft Further Amended Plaint”, he has titled it “Amended Amended Plaint”. Further, the proposed amendments have been underlined but not in red as provided in the Civil Procedure Rules. For this reason, this application also fails. 94.In view of the foregoing, I find that the Plaintiff/Applicant’s application dated 4th November, 2025 lacks merit. B. Who should bear costs of the application. 95.The general rule is that costs shall follow the event. This is in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21). 96.A successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs of an action unless the Court, for good reason, directs otherwise. Disposition. 97.Taking the foregoing into consideration, I find that the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Notice of Motion application dated 4th November, 2025 lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs. 98.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KERICHO THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2026.L. A. OMOLLOJUDGE.In the presence of: -Mr. Rotich for the Plaintiff/Applicant.Mr. Nandi for Mugunya for the 1st Defendant/Respondent.Miss Chepkemoi for the 2nd Defendant/RespondentMiss Koske for 3rd RespondentCourt Assistant; Mr. Joseph Makori.