[2025] KEHC 3265 (KLR)
The court found that although there was inordinate delay in filing the application to amend the Memorandum of Appeal, the applicant's explanation for the delay was not properly provided in the supporting affidavit and was instead made from the bar. However, since the respondent failed to file a replying affidavit to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 3265 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Phillip Musundi; Respondent: Bental Services Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Commercial Case E130 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Memorandum of Appeal
- Outcome
- Application allowed with conditions.
- Judges
- MN Mwangi
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Leave to Amend, Delay in Filing, Exercise of 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
Phillip Musundi
Applicant
Bental Services Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Memorandum of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the Memorandum of Appeal.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing the application for amendment was sufficiently explained.
- 3 Whether the respondent's opposition without a replying affidavit is adequate to rebut the applicant's factual averments.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although there was inordinate delay in filing the application to amend the Memorandum of Appeal, the applicant's explanation for the delay was not properly provided in the supporting affidavit and was instead made from the bar. However, since the respondent failed to file a replying affidavit to rebut the applicant's factual averments, those averments were deemed unchallenged. In the interest of justice and considering the pending appeal, the court exercised its discretion to allow the amendment, subject to the applicant paying thrown away costs to the respondent within a specified period. Failure to pay would result in the orders being vacated.
Court Disposition
Application allowed with conditions.
Orders
- The applicant is granted fourteen (14) days to file and serve the amended Memorandum of Appeal.
- The applicant shall pay the respondent Kshs. 15,000 as thrown away costs within seven (7) days from the date of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Musundi v Bental Services Limited (Commercial Case E130 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 3265 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (6 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 3265 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Commercial and Tax
Commercial Case E130 of 2023
MN Mwangi, J
March 6, 2025
Between
Phillip Musundi
Plaintiff
and
Bental Services Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. In the Notice of Motion dated 21st November 2024, the applicant seeks leave to amend the Memorandum of Appeal dated 16th June 2023 in terms of amended Memorandum of Appeal annexed to his supporting affidavit. The applicant avers that he initially instructed the law firm of Emmanuel Wanyonyi & Co. Advocates to file an appeal on his behalf. That later, on 5th July 2025 he instructed the firm of KWEW Advocates LLP to take over conduct of the appeal to represent his interests.
2. The applicant deposed that his current Advocates advised him on the need to amend the Memorandum of Appeal as the grounds of appeal enumerated thereon, were made in a general manner and do not reflect specific arguments that he intends to raise during the hearing of the substantive appeal.
3. He expressed the view that he will be highly prejudiced if his application is not allowed as justice may not be served adequately if he proceeds to have his appeal heard based on the said grounds appeal.
4. Mr. Simiyu, learned Counsel for the applicant explained that the delay in filing the application dated 2nd November 2024 was due to a communication breakdown between applicant’s Advocates, and the applicant who was unwell.
5. The respondent filed grounds of opposition dated 5th February 2025 stating that the application dated 21st November 2024 is misconceived, bad in law, incompetent and an outright abuse of the Court process, and that it has been brought after unexplained delay, after the applicant’s current Advocates came on record on 5th July, 2023.
6. Further, the respondent stated that the appellant has a remedy available to him in law against his Advocate, and that the proposed amendments introduce a new and inconsistent cause of action.
7. I agree with the respondent’s Advocate Mr. Muuo that the inordinate delay in filing the application dated 21st November 2024 should have been explained by the applicant in his affidavit. The applicant however skirted clear of the said issue in his supporting affidavit. The explanation given by Mr. Simiyu that there was a communication breakdown between the applicant’s current Advocates and the applicant, and that the latter was sick, were allegations made from the bar as they are not captured in the applicant’s affidavit.
8. The respondent filed Grounds of Opposition but failed to file a replying affidavit to oppose the instant application. It has been said time without number that Grounds of Opposition cannot be relied upon to respond to factual issues as they are regarded as mere averments. In the case of Kennedy Otieno Odiyo & 12 Others v Kenya Electricity Generating Company Limited [2010] eKLR, the Court held as follows when addressing the issue of reliance on Grounds of Opposition-The respondents only filed grounds of opposition to the application reproduced elsewhere in this ruling. Grounds of opposition addresses only issues of law and no more. The grounds of opposition aforesaid are basically general averments and in no way respond to the issues raised by the applicant in its supporting affidavit. Thus what was deponed to was not countered nor rebutted by the respondents. It must be taken to be true. In the absence of the replying affidavit rebutting the averments in the applicant’s supporting affidavit, means that the respondents have no claim against the applicant.
9. I do agree with the respondent that there has been inordinate delay in filing the present application, which should have been explained. However, since there is a pending appeal and the application herein calls for the exercise of my discretion, in the interest of justice, I will give the applicant fourteen (14) days to file and serve his amended Memorandum of Appeal.
10. He will however pay the respondent Kshs.15,000/= as thrown away costs within seven (7) days from today or the said orders granted herein shall automatically stand vacated.It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025. Ruling delivered through Microsoft Teams Online Platform.NJOKI MWANGIJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Simiyu h/b for Mr. Wabuge for the appellant/applicantMr. Muuo h/b for Ms Mbaabu for the respondentMs B. Wokabi – Court Assistant.NJOKI MWANGI, J.