[2023] KEELC 18305 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 18305 (KLR)

The court found that the proposed amendment to the plaint, which removed the prayer for damages and included a mandatory order of injunction, would not prejudice the defendants or cause injustice that could not be compensated by costs. The court applied the established principles that amendments should be freely...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 18305 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Munir Mohamed Sketty; Defendant: Mudathir Somoe Bwana; Defendant: Omar Faraj Alias Sachmo; Defendant: Faruk Feisal; Defendant: Musa Francis; Defendant: Yusuf Imam; Defendant: Daud Mahmoud; Defendant: Hamza Mohamed; Defendant: Abass Ali; Defendant: Ali Dodo; Defendant: Nassir Kete; Defendant: Adnan Swadik
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 213 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application to Amend Plaint
Outcome
application granted
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Leave to Amend Plaint, Principles of Justice, Prejudice to Parties
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Amendment of Pleadings Leave to Amend Plaint Principles of Justice Prejudice to Parties

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Munir Mohamed Sketty

Plaintiff

Mudathir Somoe Bwana

Defendant

Omar Faraj Alias Sachmo

Defendant

Faruk Feisal

Defendant

Musa Francis

Defendant

Yusuf Imam

Defendant

Daud Mahmoud

Defendant

Hamza Mohamed

Defendant

Abass Ali

Defendant

Ali Dodo

Defendant

Nassir Kete

Defendant

Adnan Swadik

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application to Amend Plaint

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the plaint as set out in the draft amended plaint.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment would prejudice the defendants or cause injustice that cannot be compensated by costs.
  3. 3 Whether the amendment is necessary for the effective and conclusive determination of the real questions in controversy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the proposed amendment to the plaint, which removed the prayer for damages and included a mandatory order of injunction, would not prejudice the defendants or cause injustice that could not be compensated by costs. The court applied the established principles that amendments should be freely allowed to enable the real questions in controversy to be determined, provided no new or inconsistent cause of action is introduced and no vested rights are affected. The court exercised its discretion judicially, noting that the amendment was necessary for the just and fair determination of the matter and that no party would suffer prejudice. Accordingly, the application for...

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • The plaintiff is granted leave to amend the plaint as set out in the draft amended plaint annexed to the application.
  • The draft amended plaint shall be deemed as duly filed and served upon payment of the requisite court filing fees or as directed by the court.