[2019] KEHC 7650 (KLR)
The court found that the proposed amendments to the plaint were necessary to bring out the real questions in controversy and that there was no evidence of prejudice or injustice to the defendants. The court emphasized its general power to allow amendments under Order 8 rule 5(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 7650 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mary Wairimu Musindi; Defendant: Linet Amuli; Defendant: Reitz Mureithi; Defendant: Peter Mburu; Defendant: Nation Media Group
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 14 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Plaint
- Outcome
- Application allowed; leave granted to amend plaint.
- Judges
- JK Mulwa
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Leave to Amend, Prejudice and Injustice, Electronic Evidence, Court Discretion
- 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
Mary Wairimu Musindi
Plaintiff
Linet Amuli
Defendant
Reitz Mureithi
Defendant
Peter Mburu
Defendant
Nation Media Group
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the plaint to bring out the real questions in controversy.
- 2 Whether the proposed amendments would cause prejudice or injustice to the defendants.
- 3 Whether the court should refuse leave to amend if the amendment changes the cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the proposed amendments to the plaint were necessary to bring out the real questions in controversy and that there was no evidence of prejudice or injustice to the defendants. The court emphasized its general power to allow amendments under Order 8 rule 5(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, provided such amendments do not change the cause of action. The court also addressed the issue of language in pleadings, stating that while the language of the High Court is English, it is within the plaintiff's discretion to provide translations, and the admissibility of such evidence can be determined at the hearing. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend the...
Court Disposition
Application allowed; leave granted to amend plaint.
Orders
- The applicant is granted leave to amend the plaint filed on 29th March 2018.
- The amended plaint shall be filed and served within 10 days of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAKURU
CIVILCASE NO. 14 OF 2018
MARY WAIRIMU MUSINDI............................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
LINET AMULI…..................................................................1ST DEFENDANT
REITZ MUREITHI................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
PETER MBURU..................................................................3RD DEFENDANT
NATION MEDIA GROUP....................................................4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. By an application dated 19th September 2018 and filed on even date, the plaintiff sought leave to ammend her plaint filed on the 29th March 2018 for purposes of bringing to the court the real questions in controversy between the parties.
The proposed Amended plaint is an annexture to the applicant’s supporting affidavit.
2. The defendants oppose the application by grounds of opposition filed pursuant to provisions of Order 51 rule 14 (1) (c) of the Civil Procedure Rules(CPR).
Along with the Draft Amended plaint, the applicant has filed certificate of electronic evidence under provisions of Section 65(8) and 106 (B) of the Evidence Act.
3. I have considered the application and the grounds of opposition as well as parties submissions on the matter of electronic evidence.
Order 8 rule 5(1) of the CPRgrants the court general powers to amend pleadings for purposes of bringing all relevant factors in a case with a view to assist the court to determine all the issues together. Hence unless there is serious objection such orders should be freely granted if the amendments do not cause prejudice and injustice to the other side.
4. The court will however refuse leave to amend if the amendments will the change the cause of action to a different action. – Court of Appeal in Coffee Board of Kenya -vs- Thika Coffee Mills Ltd & 2 Others (2014) e KLR.
Considering the intended amendments, I find no reason to deny the applicant the right to amend. I find no prejudice or injustice to the defendants by the proposed amendments.
5. A case belongs to the plaintiff and the language of the High Court is English. If the plaintiff in this case decides to use other language other than English in some phrases, then it is upon such plaintiff to provide an English translation of the same. However, if not done it is still at the plaintiff’s discretion as the court, during hearing would pronounce itself on the admissibility of such evidence.
6. To that extent, and having considered the very detailed submission by Mr. Kagucia Advocate for the defendants, I proceed to allow the application dated 19th September 2018 in terms of prayer (1) that the Applicant is granted leave to amend its plaint filed on the 29th March 2018.
Such Amended plaint shall be filed and served within 10 days of this ruling.
7. Costs of the application shall be costs in the cause.
Dated, signed and delivered this 25th Day of April 2019.
J.N. MULWA
JUDGE