[2019] KECA 843 (KLR)

[2019] KECA 843 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's attempt to amend its plaint to plead constructive trust was an effort to incorporate disputed findings from a ruling that was the subject of a pending appeal (Civil Appeal No. 192 of 2008). The court agreed with the High Court that allowing such an amendment would amount...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KECA 843 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Sidhi Investments Limited; Respondent: Uchumi Supermarkets Limited; Respondent: Kasarani Mall Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 139 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
J Wakiaga, MA Warsame, AK Murgor
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Constructive Trust, Powers of Registrar, Appeals From Registrar, Prejudice in Amendment
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Amendment of Pleadings Constructive Trust Powers of Registrar Appeals From Registrar Prejudice in Amendment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sidhi Investments Limited

Appellant

Uchumi Supermarkets Limited

Respondent

Kasarani Mall Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the Deputy Registrar's order allowing amendment of the plaint.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to amend its pleadings to plead constructive trust in light of a pending appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the amendment would prejudice the respondents or amount to sidestepping a pending appellate decision.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's attempt to amend its plaint to plead constructive trust was an effort to incorporate disputed findings from a ruling that was the subject of a pending appeal (Civil Appeal No. 192 of 2008). The court agreed with the High Court that allowing such an amendment would amount to the appellant gaining an unfair advantage in ongoing appellate proceedings and would prejudice the respondents. The court found no basis to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in setting aside the Deputy Registrar's order, as the amendment was not merely procedural but would affect substantive rights in a matter still under appellate consideration. The...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents.