[2019] KEELC 2065 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 2065 (KLR)

The court found that although the applicant's reasons for seeking amendment were grounded in the need to clarify the real issues in controversy and to ensure substantive justice, part of the plaintiff's evidence had already been heard. Granting the orders ex parte would prejudice the defendants, who had not yet been...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 2065 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mugera Kamotho; Defendant: James Muchiri Ndegwa; Defendant: David Muthengi; Defendant: John Nyaga; Defendant: M’Imwitha M’Rinthira; Defendant: Jackson Makunyi Kururu; Defendant: M’Gweta Murua; Defendant: Njeru Ngoroi; Defendant: Alexander Munene Mati; Defendant: Patrick Mutugi Mati; Defendant: John Gitonga Mati; Defendant: Catherine Kagendo Muturia; Defendant: M’Nandi Maikithe
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 5 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Leave to Amend Plaint
Outcome
Application for leave to amend plaint not granted at ex parte stage; application to be heard inter partes.
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Leave to Amend, Ex Parte Applications, Service of Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Amendment of Pleadings Leave to Amend Ex Parte Applications Service of Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mugera Kamotho

Plaintiff

James Muchiri Ndegwa

Defendant

David Muthengi

Defendant

John Nyaga

Defendant

M’Imwitha M’Rinthira

Defendant

Jackson Makunyi Kururu

Defendant

M’Gweta Murua

Defendant

Njeru Ngoroi

Defendant

Alexander Munene Mati

Defendant

Patrick Mutugi Mati

Defendant

John Gitonga Mati

Defendant

Catherine Kagendo Muturia

Defendant

M’Nandi Maikithe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Leave to Amend Plaint

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the plaint at the ex parte stage.
  2. 2 Whether the application for amendment should be heard inter partes before orders are granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the applicant's reasons for seeking amendment were grounded in the need to clarify the real issues in controversy and to ensure substantive justice, part of the plaintiff's evidence had already been heard. Granting the orders ex parte would prejudice the defendants, who had not yet been served or given an opportunity to respond. The court held that the principles of natural justice and fair hearing require that the defendants be served and heard before any substantive orders are made on the application for amendment. Therefore, the application could not be allowed at the ex parte stage and must proceed inter partes.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to amend plaint not granted at ex parte stage; application to be heard inter partes.

Orders

  • The prayers sought in the application are not tenable at this ex parte stage.
  • The applicant is directed to serve the application upon the defendants within 14 days.