[2012] KEHC 1759 (KLR)
The court found that the amendment sought by the applicant was necessary to regularize the proceedings and that no prejudice would be occasioned to the 1st interested party or other parties if the amendment was allowed. The court emphasized the constitutional imperative to administer justice without undue regard to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 1759 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: National Water Conservation & Pipeline Corporation; Respondent: The Water Appeals Board; Interested Party: Daniel Mwangi Ng'ang'a; Interested Party: Athi Water Services Board
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 253 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Application to Amend Notice of Motion
- Outcome
- Application allowed with costs to the 1st interested party.
- Judges
- CC Kipkorir
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Procedure, Amendment of Pleadings, Costs Award
- 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
National Water Conservation & Pipeline Corporation
Applicant
The Water Appeals Board
Respondent
Daniel Mwangi Ng'ang'a
Interested Party
Athi Water Services Board
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Application to Amend Notice of Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be allowed to amend the substantive notice of motion to reflect the Republic as the applicant and itself as the ex-parte applicant.
- 2 Whether the amendment would cause prejudice to the respondent or interested parties.
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded for the late application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the amendment sought by the applicant was necessary to regularize the proceedings and that no prejudice would be occasioned to the 1st interested party or other parties if the amendment was allowed. The court emphasized the constitutional imperative to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. However, the court noted that the application could have been avoided had the ex-parte applicant been more vigilant, and therefore awarded costs to the 1st interested party for the inconvenience caused by the late application.
Court Disposition
Application allowed with costs to the 1st interested party.
Orders
- The application to amend the substantive notice of motion is allowed in terms of prayers 1 and 2.
- The annexed amended notice of motion is deemed to have been duly amended, filed and served.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts)
Judicial Review 253 of 2011 [if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
SW X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
NATIONAL WATER CONSERVATION &
PIPELINE CORPORATION ..................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE WATER APPEALS BOARD .....................................RESPONDENT
AND
DANIEL MWANGI NG’ANG’A .........................1ST INTERESTED PARTY
ATHI WATER SERVICES BOARD ................2ND INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
Through an application filed on 24th April, 2012 the applicant herein seeks to amend the substantive notice of motion so that the Republic becomes the applicant and it (National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation) becomes the ex-parte applicant. The applicant also seeks to indicate that the application is brought under sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act among other provisions of the law. The main ground in support of the application is that the same will not cause any prejudice to the respondent and interested parties. The 1st interested party opposed the application by way of a replying affidavit sworn on 26th June, 2012. It is the 1st interested party’s argument that the applicant is reacting to his submissions and its application has come late in the day.
I have carefully considered the arguments for and against the application. The ex-parte applicant seeks to make its application proper before the eyes of the court. The main notice of motion has not been heard. The Constitution has placed an onus on the courts to do justice without undue regard to technicalities (Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution). Looking at the application placed before the court, it is clear that no prejudice will be occasioned to the 1st interested party if this application is allowed. The application is therefore allowed in terms of prayers 1 and 2 so that the annexed amended notice of motion is deemed to have been duly amended, filed and served.
This application would not have been necessary had the ex-parte applicant been more vigilant. As such I award costs of kshs.10, 000/= to the 1st interested party to be paid by the ex-parte applicant before the next mention date.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 17th day of October , 2012
W K KORIR
JUDGE