[2014] KEHC 2063 (KLR)
The court held that the Mutunga Rules, specifically Rule 18, empower the court to allow amendments to pleadings at any stage of proceedings in matters brought under Article 22 of the Constitution. The rules do not distinguish between applications and petitions for the purpose of amendments. The overriding objective...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 2063 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Reuben Lotim Anisomuk & 7 Others; Respondent: Director of Kenya Forest Service and 5 Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Constitutional Petition 1 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Oral Application to Amend Chamber Summons
- Outcome
- Oral application to amend chamber summons allowed.
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Mutunga Rules, Interim Relief, Access to Justice
- 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
Reuben Lotim Anisomuk & 7 Others
Applicant
Director of Kenya Forest Service and 5 Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Oral Application to Amend Chamber Summons
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an oral application to amend prayers in a chamber summons is permissible under the Mutunga Rules and Civil Procedure Act.
- 2 Whether the amendment can be allowed where the application is not strictly a pleading.
- 3 Whether the overriding objective of the rules supports granting the amendment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Mutunga Rules, specifically Rule 18, empower the court to allow amendments to pleadings at any stage of proceedings in matters brought under Article 22 of the Constitution. The rules do not distinguish between applications and petitions for the purpose of amendments. The overriding objective of the rules is to facilitate access to justice and timely disposal of cases. The court found that refusing the amendment on the technical ground that the application is not a pleading would defeat the purpose of the rules. The amendment sought was minor, involving only the substitution of the word 'permanent' with 'temporary' in prayers 3 and 5 of the chamber summons. The...
Court Disposition
Oral application to amend chamber summons allowed.
Orders
- Prayer 3 and 5 of the chamber summons dated 11/3/2014 are amended by deleting the word 'permanent' and replacing it with the word 'temporary'.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KITALE
CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 1 OF 2014
REUBEN LOTIM ANISOMUK & 7 OTHERS.......................PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS
VERSUS
THE DIRECTOR OF KENYA FOREST SERVICE AND 5 OTHERS...........RESPONDENTS
R U L I N G
1. On 31/7/2014, the Petitioner's advocate made an oral application seeking to amend prayers 3 and 5 of the chamber summons dated 11/3/2014 by deleting the word “permanent” and replacing the same with the word “temporary”. This application was made immediately after the said chamber summons had been adjourned to 30/10/2014.
2. The advocate for the respondents opposed the application on the grounds that the petitioners advocate had not cited the rule under which he was moving the court. The other ground of objection to the amendment is that the application is not a pleading and as such it cannot be amended.
3. In response to the respondents opposition, the petitioner's advocate stated that he was making the application under Rule 18 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013 commonly referred to as Mutunga Rules and section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act.
4. The ruling was reserved for 30/10/2014 to concide with the date on which the chamber summons is set for hearing. The application which was sought to be amended was made in Petition No. 1 of 2014. The application is seeking interim relief pending the hearing of the petition. The rules referred to in paragraph 3 hereinabove apply to all proceedings made under Article 22 of the constitution. This is clearly stated in Rule 3(1) of the Rules. The overriding objective of these rules is to facilitate access to justice for all persons and they are supposed to be interpreted in accordance with Article 259(1) of the Constitution. The court in its exercise of jurisdiction under the rules is supposed to facilitate expeditious resolution of cases so as to achieve timely disposal of proceedings.
5. The petitioner's lawyer made the application under Rule 18 of the said rules which permit the court to allow a party to the proceedings to amend pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. The rules are clear that they apply to all proceedings brought under Article 22 of the constitution. The rules do not differentiate between an application and a petition. It would therefore be unfair to reject the amendment on the ground that it is affecting an application which is not a pleading. The respondents lawyers wanted the petitioner's advocate to withdraw the application instead. Withdrawal of the application will not be furthering the overriding objective of timely disposal of proceedings at a cost affordable by all parties. I therefore find that the application is well intentioned. It is merely amending one word and replacing it with another. I allow the oral application with the result that prayer 3 and 5 of the chamber summons dated 11/3/2014 are hereby amended by deleting the word “permanent” and replacing it with the word “temporary”.
It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 30th day of October, 2014.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of Mr Rono for petitioners, Mr Ngumbi for 4th and 5th respondents – present. Mr Wafula for Professor Sifuna for 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents – present. Court Clerk – Kassachoon.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
30/10/2014