[2014] KEELC 331 (KLR)

[2014] KEELC 331 (KLR)

The court found that there was no opposition to the application for leave to amend the plaint, and that there was no reason to deny the plaintiffs the opportunity to plead their case as they wished. The court exercised its discretion to allow the amendment, noting only that the plaintiffs should ensure the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEELC 331 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Stephen Kipkosgei Samoei, Philip Katui & 60 Others; Defendant: William Chepkiyeny; Defendant: Francis C. Tunoi & 20 Others; Defendant: Director of Land Adjudication, Adjudication Officer Keiyo South District, Chief Land Registrar, Elgeyo Marakwet District Land Registrar, Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 68 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Leave to Amend Plaint
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Leave to Amend Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Fraudulent Land Allocation
Source Language
en
Land and Property Leave to Amend Pleadings Joinder of Parties Fraudulent Land Allocation

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

Stephen Kipkosgei Samoei, Philip Katui & 60 Others

Plaintiff

William Chepkiyeny

Defendant

Francis C. Tunoi & 20 Others

Defendant

Director of Land Adjudication, Adjudication Officer Keiyo South District, Chief Land Registrar, Elgeyo Marakwet District Land Registrar, Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application for Leave to Amend Plaint

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend the plaint to include additional defendants and plead particulars of fraud and illegality.
  2. 2 Whether there is any prejudice to the defendants if the amendment is allowed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no opposition to the application for leave to amend the plaint, and that there was no reason to deny the plaintiffs the opportunity to plead their case as they wished. The court exercised its discretion to allow the amendment, noting only that the plaintiffs should ensure the defendants are properly renumbered in the amended plaint. The amendment was allowed to facilitate the just determination of the real issues in controversy, and no prejudice was demonstrated by the defendants.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint in line with the annexed draft amended plaint, subject to proper sequential renumbering of the defendants.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.