[2018] KEELC 2331 (KLR)
The court found that the application to amend the originating summons was meritorious. The amendment was not solely for the purpose of adding new parties but also to include crucial information regarding the mutation of the disputed land parcel. The court held that the powers to allow amendment are intended to serve...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2331 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Stephen Ekaya Eromoto; Defendant: Letisa Nafula Omolo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 128 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Originating Summons
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- A Kaniaru
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Mutation of Land Titles, Procedural Fairness
- 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
Stephen Ekaya Eromoto
Plaintiff
Letisa Nafula Omolo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Originating Summons
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the originating summons to reflect the mutation of the disputed land parcel and to join new parties.
- 2 Whether the application is defective for being brought under the wrong provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 3 Whether the new parties must be served at this stage of the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application to amend the originating summons was meritorious. The amendment was not solely for the purpose of adding new parties but also to include crucial information regarding the mutation of the disputed land parcel. The court held that the powers to allow amendment are intended to serve the ends of justice and to ensure that litigation is based on the true facts and parties. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the application was defective for being brought under the wrong provisions, noting that the substance of the amendment justified the relief sought. The court also held that the new parties did not need to be served at this stage, as they...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Leave is granted to the applicant to amend the originating summons as prayed.
- Costs of the application shall be provided for.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA IN BUSIA
LAND & ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
ELCNO. 128 OF 2015
STEPHEN EKAYA EROMOTO............................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
LETISA NAFULA OMOLO...............................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1. The application under consideration is a Notice of Motion dated 23/5/2017 filed here on the same date (according to a copy of receipt filed together with it). But it was erroneously court-stamped 26/2/2015, thus creating the wrong impression that it was filed even before the suit herein was filed. (The suit was filed on 5/11/2015). The application is brought under Order 8 Rule 3 and Order 51 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Rules.
2. The Applicant – STEPHEN EKEYA EREMOTO – filed the application against the Respondent – LETISA NAFULA OMOLO – and is seeking the following orders:
1. That leave be and is hereby granted to the Applicant to amend his Originating Summons.
2. That costs of the application be provided for.
3. From the application, it is clear that the Applicant wants to amend the Originating Summons because Land Parcel No. BUKHAYO/BUGENGI/11652 over which he is disputing with the Respondent has now mutated into Land Parcels L.R. BUKHAYO/BUGENGI/12259 and L.R.BUKHAYO/BUGENGI/12260. These two new land parcels have two new owners – PATRICK AMOGUNA MATENDECHEREand WILFRED OMUKALA THUMA. The amendment sought is meant to capture this information.
4. The Respondent has opposed the application vide a replying affidavit filed here on 19/9/2017. According to her, the application is incurably defective and should be dismissed. She says the two new land parcels mentioned by the Applicant do not belong to her.
5. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicant’s submissions were filed on 13/10/2017. The Applicant submitted, interalia, that the Court has wide powers to allow amendment. The need to incorporate new parties and some new information into the suit was stressed. The subdivision of the resultant parcels to two parcels was said to be “a ploy to hoodwink the court and all concerned”.
6. The Respondent’s submissions were filed on 30/10/2017. It appears clear that the Respondent views the application as one merely meant to add two new parties. According to the Respondent, the application should then have been brought under Order 1 Rules 1, 2, or 14, not Order 8 Rule 3 or Order 51 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Rules. And according to the Respondent too, the intended two new persons should have been served.
7. I have considered the application, the response made, rival submissions, and the other pleadings on record. It is not true, as suggested by the Respondent, that the amendment is solely to add two new parties. One only needs to look at the draft amended originating summons. True, there are two new parties added. But there is also a lot of other information added to the body of the application capturing details that were not included in the initial application.
8. The court does not also agree with the Respondent that the two new parties should be served at this stage. As things stand, the suit is at this stage between the Applicant and the Respondent. It is still in the early stages. The two new parties will have time to object to their inclusion once they are brought on board. I need to observe here that as of now, the two new persons proposed to be enjoined seem to be necessary parties. The Respondent has no mandate to purport to speak for them.
9. It is important to appreciate that the powers to allow amendment are granted to courts to prevent the failure of justice due to procedural errors, mistakes, or defects. The powers are meant to serve the ends of justice. They are also aimed at making the functions of the court more effective by ensuring that the focus is on the substantive merits of the case. The ultimate objective of amendment is to ensure that the parties alter their pleadings so as to ensure that the litigation between them is conducted not on the false hypothesis of the facts already pleaded or the relief already claimed, but rather on the basis of true state of affairs or facts or the true remedy being sought.
10. The application herein is brought for good reasons. It would be wrong to disallow it as that would lead to omission of crucial information that may ultimately help the court to deliver justice on merits. It also may lead to shutting out parties whose say or input in this case is necessary. The application is therefore found meritorious and is hereby allowed.
Dated, signed and delivered at Busia this 24th day of July, 2018.
A. K. KANIARU
JUDGE
In the Presence of:
Plaintiff: ..............................................................................
Defendant: ...........................................................................
Counsel of Plaintiff:............................................................
Counsel of Defendant:........................................................