[2012] KEHC 3496 (KLR)
The court found that the proposed amendments did not introduce a new cause of action but rather clarified and made the pleadings more precise. The claim of negligence was based on the contractual relationship between the parties, as pleaded in the original plaint. The reduction in the amount claimed was not a new...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 3496 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Shajanand Industries Ltd; Defendant: Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 21 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Amend Plaint
- Outcome
- application to amend plaint allowed
- Judges
- A Ali-Aroni
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Contractual Negligence, Limitation of Actions
- 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
Shajanand Industries Ltd
Plaintiff
Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Amend Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the proposed amendments to the plaint introduce a new cause of action that is time-barred.
- 2 Whether the amendments would prejudice the defendant.
- 3 Whether the reduction of the claimed amount constitutes a new matter.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the proposed amendments did not introduce a new cause of action but rather clarified and made the pleadings more precise. The claim of negligence was based on the contractual relationship between the parties, as pleaded in the original plaint. The reduction in the amount claimed was not a new matter but a modification of the quantum of damages. The court held that the amendments would not prejudice the defendant and that the issue of limitation did not arise as the substance of the claim remained unchanged. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to allow the amendments in the interest of justice and directed the plaintiff to file and serve the amended plaint...
Court Disposition
application to amend plaint allowed
Orders
- The plaintiff is granted leave to amend the plaint as proposed.
- The amended plaint to be filed and served within 14 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT KISUMU
Civil Case 21 of 2007
SHAJANAND INDUSTRIES LTD ………….................………………….…… PLAINTIFF
-VERSUS-
KENYA POWER & LIGHTING CO. LTD …………...............…………………..DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The plaintiff Shajanand Holdings Limited filed this application dated 30th November, 2010 seeking for leave to amend its plaint in order to include further particulars in support of its claim. It contends that unless the order is granted it will suffer prejudice and that the amendments will not prejudice the defendant.
The application was opposed by the defendant Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd who filed grounds of opposition to the effect that the amendment will introduce a new cause of action which action is time bared further the amendment and intended to defeat the preliminary objection raised in the defence.
I have considered submissions by both learned counsels on record. I have considered also the initial plaint and the proposed amendments.
In paragraph 3 of the initial plaint dated 21st February, 2007 the plaintiff pleaded as follows:-
“(3) At all material times relevant to this suit the plaintiff was a customer of the defendant vide an electricity supply contract in respect of its premises situated at Matete area in Webuye, known as Tajoni Emporium, account number 6640237-02 full particulars of which are well within the defendants knowledge.”
I will pose here to consider the import of paragraph 3 of the plaint printed verbatim above. The said paragraph is clear to me that the plaintiff alleges a contract between the two parties for the supply of electricity.
In paragraph 4 of the initial plaint the plaintiff alleged negligence and recklessness on the part of the defendant in failing to monitor and maintain its transformers. It went ahead to give particulars of the alleged negligence.
With the above 2 paragraphs i.e 3 & 4 of the plaint to say that the claim was based on tort would therefore not be right. My understanding is that the plaintiff claimed negligence based on the contract between the 2. I understand the proposed amendment to be an addition to the allegations already made.
The second amendment proposed is a proposed is a reducing of the loss from Kshs 4,000,000/= to 1,125,000/=. This is definitely not a new matter.
In my view the 1st amendment cannot be said to be an introduction of a new cause of action, as urged by the defence. The effects of the amendment is to make the pleadings more clearer and precise. The effect of the 2nd amendment is a reduction from one sum to another. Although the defendant claimed time limitation and prejudice likely to be suffered, the amendments in my view can not deviate in substance from the initial claim. None of the proposed amendments would in any event prejudice the respondent. The claim alleged was not substantiated.
I will therefore allow the amendment.The amended plaint be filed and served within 14 days. Costs in the cause.
This being an old matter parties are directed to close the pleadings within the next 30 days from the date hereof. Compliance with order 11 to be within the next 45 days from today and a hearing date be taken within the next 3 months of the date hereof.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2012.
ALI-ARONI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
…………………………………………… present for plaintiff
……………………………….….…….present for defendant