[2018] KEELC 1388 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, as administrator of the estate of the late Muana Koikai, sought to amend the plaint to reflect his proper capacity. The court held that the respondents had not demonstrated any prejudice or injustice that would result from the amendment. Guided by established principles that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 1388 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rupare Ole Koika; Respondent: Lemuntoi Ole Letoluo; Respondent: Peter Ole Letoluo; Respondent: District Land Registrar; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 92 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Plaint
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- MN Kullow
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Letters of Administration, Estate of Deceased, Group Ranch Membership
- 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
Rupare Ole Koika
Applicant
Lemuntoi Ole Letoluo
Respondent
Peter Ole Letoluo
Respondent
District Land Registrar
Respondent
Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the plaint to reflect that he sues as administrator of the estate of Muana Koikai.
- 2 Whether the amendment would prejudice the respondents or amount to an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, as administrator of the estate of the late Muana Koikai, sought to amend the plaint to reflect his proper capacity. The court held that the respondents had not demonstrated any prejudice or injustice that would result from the amendment. Guided by established principles that amendments should be allowed to facilitate the determination of real issues and should not be denied unless they cause injustice or are an abuse of process, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application. The court further granted the defendants leave to amend their defence if necessary, ensuring procedural fairness to both sides.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The application dated 31st July, 2017 is allowed.
- The amended plaint to be filed and served within 14 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT NAROK
ELC CAUSE NO. 92 OF 2017
FORMERLY NAKURU ELC NO. 62 OF 2014
RUPARE OLE KOIKA..........................................APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
LEMUNTOI OLE LETOLUO..................1ST RESPONDENT
PETER OLE LETOLUO..........................2ND RESPONDENT
DISTRICT LAND REGISTAR.................3RD RESPONDENT
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL................4TH RESPONDENT
RULING
The Application before me is the Notice of Motion dated 31st July, 2017 which was brought under order 8 Rule (3) (1) and 4, rule 5 and order 51 rule 1 and section 3 and 3A in which the Applicant seeks leave of the court to amend the plaintiff’s name, prayer (a) of the plaint to read Rupare Ole Koiai.
The Application is based on the grounds that the plaint was filed in the name of the plaintiff but he did not indicate that he was suing on behalf of the estate of Muana Koikai in which he is the administrator of the deceased’s estate and that the amendment sought will enable the estate of the deceased to enforce any order that will be issued by the court and lastly the proposed amendment will not prejudice the defendant.
The application was supported by the Affidavit of the Plaintiff which he expounded on the grounds on which the application is based. The applicant has averred that he is the administrator of the estate of the late Muana Koikai and he attached a confirmed letter of grant.
The Applicant further averred that the deceased prior to his death was a member of Olkenya Group Ranch and title to his share of his estate was wrongly issued to the 1st and 2nd defendant.
The Application was opposed by the Respondent who contends that the Application is incompetent as prayers sought cant be granted. The Respondent contends that letter ad litem was filed after the suit was filed and the applicant doesn’t qualify for the orders sought.
I have read the application before me and the replying affidavit in opposition.
The grounds upon the grant of amendment is well settled by a number of authorities and that the amendment sought should not do any injustice or be an abuse of court process and that the amendment sought will be for the purpose of determining the real issues between the parties.
Even though the respondent contends that the letter of administration was obtained after the suit was filed I find that the respondent has not demonstrated what injustice or prejudice they will suffer if the amendments are made.
Having read the application and guided by the principle for the grant of orders of amendment, I will exercise my discretion and allow the application dated 31st July, 2017 and the amended plaint be filed and served within the next 14 days. The Defendants are granted leave to amend their defence if need be.
Costs in the cause.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED in open court at NAROK on this 28th day of September, 2018
Mohammed Noor Kullow
Judge
28/9/18
In the presence of:-
Masikonde holding brief or Ms Moriney for the applicant
N/A for the Respondent
CA:Chuma