[2000] KEHC 251 (KLR)
The court determined that although there was an unexplained delay in seeking the amendment to the plaint regarding the deceased's salary, the overriding objective of justice required that the correct facts be placed before the court. The trial had just commenced, and no irreparable prejudice would be caused to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KEHC 251 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Rosemary Mugerwa; Defendant: Coach Safaris Limited; Defendant: Another (not named)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 47 of 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Interlocutory Application for Amendment of Plaint
- Outcome
- Application for amendment of plaint allowed with conditions.
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Delay in Application, Costs of Application
- 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
Rosemary Mugerwa
Plaintiff
Coach Safaris Limited
Defendant
Another (not named)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Interlocutory Application for Amendment of Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should be allowed to amend the plaint to correct the deceased's monthly salary figure.
- 2 Whether the delay in seeking the amendment is justified or prejudicial to the defendants.
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded to the defence due to the late amendment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that although there was an unexplained delay in seeking the amendment to the plaint regarding the deceased's salary, the overriding objective of justice required that the correct facts be placed before the court. The trial had just commenced, and no irreparable prejudice would be caused to the defendants that could not be compensated by an award of costs. The amendment was therefore allowed, but the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs of Kshs 3,000 to the defence for the application, to be paid before judgment is delivered.
Court Disposition
Application for amendment of plaint allowed with conditions.
Orders
- The plaint is amended to reflect the deceased's salary as Kshs 6,000 per month.
- The plaintiff shall pay Kshs 3,000 as costs to the defence for this application before judgment is delivered.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CIV CASE 47 OF 94
ROSEMARY MUGERWA V COACH SAFARIS LIMITED & ANOTHER
J W MWERA, JUDGE
MARCH 2, 2000
March 2, 2000 J W Mwera, Judge delivered the following ruling. This application falls under Order 1 rule 10(2) 6A rule 3 Civil procedure Rules and section 3A Civil Procedure Act. By it the plaintiff prays that she amend her plaint filed here on February 2, 1994. That when pleadings were initially drawn by Messrs Mbugua & Mbugua advocates Nairobi by error they indicated the deceased’s salary per month as Kshs 2,630 while in fact he earned Kshs 6,000 per month as a receptionist with a firm called Ngilu & Associates.
Mr Mulu swore an affidavit in support to the effect that a letter from Messrs Ngilu & Associates had stated the latter sum and so it ought to be the basis of the trial herein. That was the main prayer besides the intended amendment to paragraph 1 of the plaint wherein the firm of Messrs L M Wambua & company advocates Machakos are shown to replace Messrs Mbugua & Mbugua advocates.
Mrs Mbugua who opposed this application did not appear to have a quarrel with this amendment to paragraph 1 but rightly pointed out and Mrs Kalinga readily admitted that an attempt to amend paragraph 7 of the plaint was not part of this application to amend and that there was irregularity even in that purported amendment that there was not the mandatory red underlining. That is quite right and at this point it should be ruled that the trial will proceed with the original paragraph 7 in the initial plaint dated June 6, 1993. Attention then focused on paragraph 6 of the plaint which was to be amended principally as regards the salary per month – from Kshs 2,630 to Kshs 6,000.
Mrs Mbugua posited that this was very late in the day because since the filing of the plaint, the change of advocates on July 20, 1995, and receipt of the letter dated February 9, 1996 (stating the Kshs 6,000 per month) the plaintiff’s lawyer had done nothing to seek the amendment which they seek now about 4 to 5 years down the line. That in that slumber, they stayed until the hearing opened and the plaintiff was about to testify on the salary per month. The delay was not explained or justified.
Both sides were agreed that this court had wide jurisdiction under 06A to allow the sought amendment. It is not actually explained away why all this delay until the plaintiff climbed into the witness box for her lawyers to realize that the sum pleaded as salary per month was much less than Kshs 6,000 the deceased’s former employer had stated. That sum is basic though. However this court is inclined to grant the desired amendment more for justice to be done in the case than that the delay to apply went unexplained. It is not too late in the trial. It had just opened. However the plaintiff will pay costs assessed at Kshs 3,000 to the defence for this application before judgment is delivered.
Amendment allowed on the stated condition.
Orders accordingly. Hearing may proceed.