[2018] KEELC 1438 (KLR)
The court found that although amendments to pleadings are generally allowed before hearing, in this case, the hearing had already commenced and the plaintiff's case was underway. Allowing the amendment and counterclaim at this stage would prejudice the plaintiff and delay the proceedings further. The court also...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 1438 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Registered Trustee Gospel of God Church; Defendant: Elias Rimberia Mborothi; Defendant: Zaverio Nguru Mborothi; Defendant: Moses Kamundi; Defendant: Gediel Kirimi; Defendant: Francis Mucheru; Defendant: Registered Trustee, Gospel of God Church International; Defendant: Nora Ntui Mutai; Defendant: The Land Registrar, Meru; Defendant: The Honourable Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 114 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Defence and Enjoin Party
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Counterclaims, Delay of Proceedings
- 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
Registered Trustee Gospel of God Church
Plaintiff
Elias Rimberia Mborothi
Defendant
Zaverio Nguru Mborothi
Defendant
Moses Kamundi
Defendant
Gediel Kirimi
Defendant
Francis Mucheru
Defendant
Registered Trustee, Gospel of God Church International
Defendant
Nora Ntui Mutai
Defendant
The Land Registrar, Meru
Defendant
The Honourable Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Defence and Enjoin Party
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 3rd, 5th, and 6th defendants should be granted leave to amend their statement of defence to include a counterclaim.
- 2 Whether the registrar of societies should be enjoined as a party to the counterclaim.
- 3 Whether the proposed amendment would cause prejudice or delay to the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although amendments to pleadings are generally allowed before hearing, in this case, the hearing had already commenced and the plaintiff's case was underway. Allowing the amendment and counterclaim at this stage would prejudice the plaintiff and delay the proceedings further. The court also noted a pattern of repeated applications by the defence, which had already caused delays. The constitutional mandate to ensure justice is not delayed outweighed the applicants' request. Therefore, the application to amend the defence and enjoin a new party was disallowed to prevent further injustice and delay to the plaintiff.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to plaintiff
Orders
- The application dated 2.7.2018 is disallowed.
- Costs awarded to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC CASE NO. 114 OF 2011
REGISTERED TRUSTEE GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH .................... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ELIAS RIMBERIA MBOROTHI .................................................. 1ST DEFENDANT
ZAVERIO NGURU MBOROTHI .................................................. 2ND DEFENDANT
MOSES KAMUNDI ......................................................................... 3RD DEFENDANT
GEDIEL KIRIMI ............................................................................. 4TH DEFENDANT
FRANCIS MUCHERU ................................................................... 5TH DEFENDANT
REGISTERED TRUSTEE, GOSPEL OF GOD
CHURCH INTERNATIONAL ....................................................... 6TH DEFENDANT
NORA NTUI MUTAI ..................................................................... 7TH DEFENDANT
THE LAND REGISTRAR, MERU ............................................... 8TH DEFENDANT
THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL ........................ 9TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This ruling is in respect of the application filed on 2. 7.2018 by the 3rd, 5th and 6th defendants, where the applicants are seeking leave to amend their statement of defence to include a counterclaim and to enjoin the registrar of societies as the intended 2nd defendant in the counter claim.
2. Applicants have availed annexture “MNKI” which is a resolution of the 6th defendant indicating their desire to bring forth this amendment.
3. The application was argued orally on 26. 7.2018. Counsel for the applicant avers that he took over from the previous advocate recently. He avers that a party who comes to court ought to be allowed to ventilate his case and that the applicants have approached the court early enough before plaintiffs could close their case. Applicants aver that the amendment will enable the court to effectively adjudicate on the issues in controversy.
4. The application is opposed by plaintiff’s who avers that the application is a delaying tactic and that the applicants have been making so many applications.
5. I have weighed all the arguments raised herein. In the case of Daniel Ngatiah & another vs K-Rep Bank Ltd, Nairobi Milimani High Court case no. 409 of 2010, reference was made to the case of Eastern Bakery vs Castelino (1958) EA 461where it was stated that “It will be sufficient for purposes of the present case to say that amendments to pleadings sought before the hearing should be freely allowed, if they can be made without injustice to the other side and that there is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs ……………”.
6. In the case of Maria Rosita Gardozo vs Robert Kibagendi Otachi & another (2013) eKLR, the court of appeal observed that “The overriding consideration in an application for leave is whether the amendments are necessary for the just determination of the controversy between the parties …………..”.
7. Firstly, I note that although this case was filed in 2011, the dispute or the wrangles appear to have arisen more than 38 years ago in 1985. The case is old, the dispute is older. Allowing amendments of pleading at this stage will only delay the suit further.
8. Secondly, I note that the hearing of the case has commenced and plaintiff’s case is underway. It will certainly be prejudicial to the plaintiff’s case if defence is allowed to not only amend their pleadings but to bring forth a counterclaim at this stage.
9. Thirdly, I find that as noted by plaintiff’s counsel, defence side appear to be making numerous applications. This year alone, I have delivered two rulings in respect of applications made by defence (see ruling of 28. 2.2018 and 18. 4.2018). This matter was scheduled for hearing on 26. 7.2018 but the hearing stalled because of this application. The trial ought to proceed instead of hearing so many applications.
10. This court has a constitutional mandate to ensure that justice is not delayed as per article 159 (2) (b) of the constitution which states that “justice shall not be delayed”.
11. My conclusion is that the proposed amendments will cause injustice to plaintiff’s side and will delay the matter further. In the circumstances the application dated 2. 7.2018 is disallowed with costs to plaintiff.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS DAY OF 3RD OCTOBER, 2018 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C/A: Galgalo/Faith
Mugo for plaintiff
Muriithi for 1st and 2nd defendant Miss Njenga for 3rd, 5th and 6th defendants
Kiango for Attorney General for 8th and 9th defendants
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE