[2020] KEHC 1201 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 1201 (KLR)

The court found that the ex parte Applicant had complied with the initial directions regarding the filing of the substantive Notice of Motion within the required timelines. The amendments sought were limited to correcting the form of the application, specifically the description of the parties, and did not affect...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 1201 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: The Attorney General; Applicant: Jacqueline Wangui Ndirangu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E052 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend and Extension of Time
Outcome
Application allowed; leave to amend Notice of Motion granted; extension of time granted; no order as to costs.
Judges
P Nyamweya
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Mandamus, Amendment of Pleadings, Procedural Timelines
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Judicial Review Mandamus Amendment of Pleadings Procedural Timelines

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

The Attorney General

Respondent

Jacqueline Wangui Ndirangu

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend and Extension of Time

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte Applicant should be granted leave to amend the Notice of Motion to correct the description of parties.
  2. 2 Whether the time for filing and serving the substantive Notice of Motion and submissions should be extended.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the ex parte Applicant had complied with the initial directions regarding the filing of the substantive Notice of Motion within the required timelines. The amendments sought were limited to correcting the form of the application, specifically the description of the parties, and did not affect the substance of the application. The court determined that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent, who had not yet filed a response. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to allow the amendment and extension of time, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and the need to facilitate the just determination of the matter. The court also took judicial...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; leave to amend Notice of Motion granted; extension of time granted; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 17th November 2020 is certified urgent and admitted to hearing ex parte.
  • Leave granted to amend the Notice of Motion dated 10th November 2020; Amended Notice of Motion to be filed within seven days.