[2019] KEHC 776 (KLR)
The court held that since the plaint had been amended to address the issue of limitation, which was the subject of the preliminary objection, limitation had become a triable issue requiring evidence at the hearing. Therefore, it was unnecessary to determine the preliminary objection at this stage. The parties were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 776 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Richard Ombui; Defendant: AMREF Kenya Country Office; Defendant: The Hon. Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 161 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Amendment of Plaint
- Outcome
- Preliminary objection not determined; suit to proceed to hearing on merits.
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Amendment of Pleadings, Preliminary Objection
- 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
Richard Ombui
Plaintiff
AMREF Kenya Country Office
Defendant
The Hon. Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Amendment of Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the preliminary objection on limitation should be determined after the plaint was amended to address limitation issues.
- 2 Whether the amendments to the plaint render the preliminary objection moot.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the plaint had been amended to address the issue of limitation, which was the subject of the preliminary objection, limitation had become a triable issue requiring evidence at the hearing. Therefore, it was unnecessary to determine the preliminary objection at this stage. The parties were directed to proceed to hearing on the merits, with limitation as one of the issues to be determined based on evidence.
Court Disposition
Preliminary objection not determined; suit to proceed to hearing on merits.
Orders
- Parties to comply with relevant provisions of law for hearing of the suit on merit.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 161 OF 2012
RICHARD OMBUI.............................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
AMREF KENYA COUNTRY OFFICE................................1ST DEFENDANT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL ...............................2ND DEFENDANAT
RULING
On 6th February 2018 the main suit herein was listed for hearing. The advocates on record however informed the court that they had agreed to adjourn the matter so that they deal with the issue of limitation. The court acceded to the parties’ request and ordered the filing of submissions within the set timetable. Subsequently, the parties complied but before a ruling was delivered, the plaintiff filed an application by way of Notice of Motion dated 25th May, 2018 to amend the plaint.
Once again parties were ordered to file submissions. On 10th April, 2019 the application dated 25th May, 2018 was determined and leave granted to the plaintiff to amend the plaint. The further amended plaint was filed on 11th April, 2019 within the time allowed by the court. The ruling allowed the defendants to file amended defences within 14 days of service of the amended plaint.
The attention of the court was subsequently drawn to the fact the preliminary objection had not been determined. On 30th October, 2019, upon consulting counsel on record, the court set the date for the delivery of the ruling on preliminary objection based on submissions already filed. Upon retiring to prepare the ruling based on submissions addressing the preliminary objection, I noted that the preliminary objection had been overshadowed by the application dated 25th May, 2018 which sought the amendment of the plaint.
It is instructive that the ruling on the amendment of the plaint has not been reviewed or appealed, yet the amendments now in place address the subject of limitation, which was the issue raised in the preliminary objection. Paragraphs 13 a,b,c,d and e, and 15a of the further amended plaint attest to that.
The foregoing being the case, limitation is now a triable issue and evidence shall be required to either uphold or dismiss the same. In that regard, I do not deem it necessary to make any determination on the preliminary objection raised in this matter.
The parties shall now comply with the relevant provisions of law leading to the hearing of the suit on merit. Considering this is a very old matter, parties shall endeavour to comply with the said provisions with a view to expediting the final determination. Costs in the cause.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 19th Day of December, 2019.
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE