[2017] KEELC 2901 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had obtained a limited grant and applied for substitution without undue delay. The proposed amendments in the re-amended plaint did not introduce any new cause of action, and the details of the amendments were already contained in the previously filed amended plaint. The 1st...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 2901 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Sondhi Aase Jorid; Defendant: Denman Properties Limited; Defendant: District Land Registrar, Kilifi; Defendant: The Hon. Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 136 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Substitution of Plaintiff
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- OA Angote, JO Olola
- Legal Topics
- Substitution of Parties, Amendment of Pleadings, Survival of Cause of Action
- 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
Sondhi Aase Jorid
Plaintiff
Denman Properties Limited
Defendant
District Land Registrar, Kilifi
Defendant
The Hon. Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Substitution of Plaintiff
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be substituted as plaintiff in place of the deceased plaintiff.
- 2 Whether the amendments sought in the re-amended plaint introduce a new cause of action or prejudice the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had obtained a limited grant and applied for substitution without undue delay. The proposed amendments in the re-amended plaint did not introduce any new cause of action, and the details of the amendments were already contained in the previously filed amended plaint. The 1st defendant did not object to the substitution itself, only to further amendments. The court concluded that the requirements for substitution had been met and that no prejudice would be occasioned to the defendants by allowing the application as prayed.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The application dated 2nd August, 2016 is allowed as prayed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MALINDI
ELC CASE NO. 136 OF 2010
SONDHI AASE JORID …………....................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DENMAN PROPERTIES LIMITED ......................1ST DEFENDANT
DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR, KILIFI ................2ND DEFENDANT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL .....................3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
1. In the Application dated 2nd August, 2016, the Applicant is seeking for leave to be substituted as the Plaintiff in the suit in the place of the deceased Plaintiff.
2. The Application is premised on the grounds that the Plaintiff died on 22nd August, 2015 and that the cause of action survives her; that the Applicant was issued with a limited grant by the court on 4th May, 2016 and that the Application has been filed without undue delay.
3. The 1st Defendant filed Grounds of Opposition in which he averred that the amendments sought in the Amended Plaint have been sought late in the day; that the amendments are meant to re-open the Plaintiff’s case which has since been closed and substantial hearing of the Defendant’s case started and that the amendments are meant to cure the gaps in the Plaintiff’s case arising out of cross-examination.
4. The Defendant is agreeable to only prayer number 1 of the Application being granted.
5. In his submissions, the Plaintiff’s advocate submitted that the prayers sought in the re-amended Plaint are unchanged; that the amendments sought do not introduce any new cause of action and that the issue of re-opening the Plaintiff’s case is jumping the gun.
6. The Defendants did not file submissions.
7. The Plaintiff in this matter closed his case. The Defendants called its witness and the only witness that was remaining was the Land Registrar. The court has already directed that the witness summons do issue in respect to the said Land Registrar.
8. Although the 1st Defendant has no objection to the substitution of the Plaintiff, it is opposed to the other suggested amendments in the draft “Re-Amendment Plaint.”
9. I have perused the “Re-Amendment Plaint” and noted that the Plaintiff has not introduced any new cause of action in the said proposed Re-Amended Plaint.
10. Indeed, the details of the amendments are in the “Amended Plaint” which was filed on 11th July, 2012 and not the proposed “Re-Amended Plaint.”
11. In the circumstances, I allow the Application dated 2nd August, 2016 as prayed.
DATED AND SIGNED ATMACHAKOSTHIS2NDDAY OFMAY, 2017.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE
DATED, DELIVEREDANDSIGNEDATMALINDITHIS12TH DAY OF MAY, 2017.
J.O. OLOLA
JUDGE