[2007] KEHC 2159 (KLR)
The court held that while amendments to pleadings are generally to be allowed, the proposed amendment in this case sought to introduce accounts held by third parties who are not parties to the suit. Allowing such an amendment would obscure the real issues, potentially prejudice the defendant, and unnecessarily...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 2159 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mohamed S. Bakhresa; Defendant: Nasra Abdulwahab Ahmed
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 192 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Amend Plaint
- Outcome
- Application to amend plaint partly allowed and partly dismissed with costs to the defendant.
- Judges
- DK Maraga
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Prejudice to Parties, Scope of Pleadings
- 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
Mohamed S. Bakhresa
Plaintiff
Nasra Abdulwahab Ahmed
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Amend Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the plaint to introduce allegations regarding secret accounts held by third parties.
- 2 Whether allowing the amendment would prejudice the defendant or obscure the real issues in controversy.
- 3 Whether the court can make orders affecting accounts held by non-parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that while amendments to pleadings are generally to be allowed, the proposed amendment in this case sought to introduce accounts held by third parties who are not parties to the suit. Allowing such an amendment would obscure the real issues, potentially prejudice the defendant, and unnecessarily complicate the proceedings by dragging in non-parties. The court emphasized that it cannot make orders affecting the rights of persons who are not parties to the suit. Therefore, the amendment relating to the third-party accounts was refused, but the plaintiff was allowed to make other amendments not involving those accounts.
Court Disposition
Application to amend plaint partly allowed and partly dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Orders
- Amendments relating to third-party accounts (paragraph 13A and related references) are refused.
- Plaintiff is allowed to make other amendments as proposed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
Civil Suit 192 of 2006
MOHAMED S. BAKHRESA …………….......…..…………PLAINTIFF
V E R S U S
NASRA ABDULWAHAB AHMED …………………… DEFENDANT
RULING
The Plaintiff seeks leave of this court to amend his plaint. He claims that as the suit properties were in danger of being spirited away he filed this suit in a hurry before discovering much. He says he has since the filing of the suit discovered secret accounts held by the defendant and other matters that he wants to bring to the attention of the court.
In presenting the application the plaintiff’s lead counsel submitted that the plaintiff will during the hearing of this suit demonstrate that the defendant siphoned funds from the account she held with him into the secret accounts even though some are in the names of third parties.
The defendant strongly opposes the application. Apart from denying that she was at any time disposing of the suit properties to require the plaintiff to file this suit in a hurry she has averred in the replying affidavit that there is nothing she hid from the plaintiff. She has stated that the plaintiff at all times knew of all the accounts she held in her name and those in their joint names. She further states that the amendments the Applicant seeks to make will not assist to determine the real issues in controversy in this case as the accounts the plaintiff wishes to introduce are in the names of people who are not parties to this suit. She fears that if the plaintiff is allowed to introduce them that will confuse and obscure the issues in this case.
The law is quite clear on amendments to pleadings. As was stated by the Court of Appeal in Central Kenya Ltd. –Vs- Trust Bank [2002] 2 EA 365 amendments to pleadings should be freely allowed unless the opposite party will be prejudiced or suffer injustice which can not properly be compensated for in costs. With that principle in mind, when counsel finished arguing this application I thought it is one of those run-of-the-mill applications for amendment that I would allow and let the parties fight it out at the hearing. But after a careful consideration of the matter I am of a different view on some aspects of the amendments sought to be introduced.
The defendant has specifically averred in the replying affidavit that the accounts sought to be introduced are in the names of the third parties who are not parties to this suit and that to allow them to be introduced will obscure the issues. I agree with that averment.
In the draft amended plaint the names of the holders of those accounts have not been given. Further more the plaintiff has not specifically denied the defendant’s assertion that those accounts are in the names of third parties. If I understood his counsel well, his argument was that even if those accounts are in the names of third parties the plaintiff will during the hearing demonstrate that funds were transferred from the defendants account or those jointly held with the plaintiff into those third party accounts. But that is not what is stated in the proposed amendment. In paragraph 13A it is alleged that funds were transferred into those accounts “from unknown accounts.” This is not the kind of amendments the courts should freely and liberally allow to be made. I agree with counsel for the defendant that to allow the plaintiff to introduce those accounts will obscure the issues in this case.
To allow the amendment relating to those accounts will obviously drag the names of their holders into this suit without making them parties. I am sure that will lead to allegations of their relationship, if any, with the defendant or what advantage the defendant would gain by transferring her funds with the plaintiff into those accounts. That is going to be murky and obfuscate the issues in this case as I foresee the holders of those accounts going to seek to be joined in this case to refute the allegations that the defendant transferred funds into their accounts to defraud the plaintiff. If that happens those people are going to try to demonstrate the source of the funds deposited into those accounts. That is not an issue in this case and I agree with the defendant that that is not only going to delay the quick disposal of this case but will also cause prejudice to her.
Besides that the court will not make orders touching on accounts of people who are not party to this suit. I think it will be enough for the plaintiff to show, if he can, that the defendant cannot account for the funds withdrawn from their accounts or those held for him in her name. If he wishes to trace those funds into other people’s accounts he must make those people parties to this suit.
For these reasons the amendments relating to those accounts, that is paragraph 13A of the proposed amended plaint and those referring to those accounts are refused. The plaintiff is however allowed to make the other amendments.
Save as hereinabove stated his application is dismissed with costs.
DATED and delivered this 11th day of July 2007.
D.K. MARAGA
JUDGE