[2018] KEELC 217 (KLR)
The court found that under Order 8, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, it has broad discretion to allow amendments to pleadings, even where the limitation period has expired or where the amendment introduces a new cause of action or party. The court determined that the plaintiffs had established sufficient...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 217 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Sunrise Orthopaedic & Trauma Hospital Ltd; Plaintiff: David Langat; Defendant: Dr. Lectary Kibor Keiyo Lelei; Defendant: Sunrise Orthopaedic & Trauma Hospital Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 56A of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Plaint
- Outcome
- application for leave to amend plaint granted
- Judges
- A Ombwayo
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Leave of Court, Ownership of Land
- 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
Sunrise Orthopaedic & Trauma Hospital Ltd
Plaintiff
David Langat
Plaintiff
Dr. Lectary Kibor Keiyo Lelei
Defendant
Sunrise Orthopaedic & Trauma Hospital Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend the consolidated and re-amended plaint.
- 2 Whether the proposed amendments are barred by the Limitation of Actions Act.
- 3 Whether the amendments would substitute the cause of action or introduce a new party.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that under Order 8, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, it has broad discretion to allow amendments to pleadings, even where the limitation period has expired or where the amendment introduces a new cause of action or party. The court determined that the plaintiffs had established sufficient grounds for the amendment, as it would assist in determining the real issues in controversy between the parties. The objections raised by the 1st defendant regarding limitation and substitution of cause of action were not sufficient to deny the application, given the court's discretion under the cited rules. Accordingly, the court granted leave to amend the plaint as prayed.
Court Disposition
application for leave to amend plaint granted
Orders
- Leave is granted to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint as prayed.
- The amended plaint shall be filed and served within 2 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
E & L CASE NO. 56A OF 2013
(Formerly Eldoret Hccc No. 130 of 2011)
SUNRISE ORTHOPAEDIC & TRAUMA HOSPITAL LTD....................1ST PLAINTIFF
DAVID LANGAT...........................................................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DR. LECTARY KIBOR KEIYO LELEI..................................................1ST DEFENDANT
SUNRISE ORTHOPAEDIC & TRAUMA HOSPITAL LIMITED......2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
Sunrise Orthopaedic & Trauma Hospital Limited and David Langat have sued Dr. Lectary Kibor Keiyo Lelei and Sunrise Orthopaedic &Trauma Hospital Limited and has sought to amend the consolidated and re-amended plaint. The grounds for amendment are for purposes of determining the real issue in controversy between the parties. There are two issues to be determined thus whether Sunrise Orthopaedic and Trauma Hospital Limited is entitled to L.R. Eldoret Municipality Block 8/90 and whether David Langat is entitled to an order compelling Dr. Lelei to refund David Langat Kshs. 21,470,686. It is stated that amending the plaint as proposed will assist the court in determining the read question in controversy between the parties. The supporting affidavit of David Langat reiterates what is stated in the grounds of the opposition.
The 1st defendant filed grounds of opposition whose gist is that no sufficient grounds have been laid down for the orders sought. Moreover, that the amendment substitutes the cause of action and that the amendments are vitiated by the Limitation of Actions Act.
I have considered the application, the grounds of opposition and do begin by stating that amendment of pleadings with leave of the court is provided for under Order 8, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. Under this provision of law, the court has a wide discretion to allow amendment of pleadings. According to Order 8, Rule 3(1), the court may allow any party to amend pleadings on such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be just and in such manner as it may direct.
Subsection 3(2) provides that the court may allow the amendment even where the period of Limitation has expired where it thinks just so to do. An amendment will be allowed even if the effect would be to substitute a party or introduce a new cause of action.
I do consider this provision and do find that the plaintiff is entitled to the orders sought. I do grant leave to amend the plaint as prayed. The amended plaint to be filed and served within 2 days. The defendants to file and serve amended defence within 3 days of serve. Mention on 10. 12. 2018.
Dated and delivered at Eldoret this 3rd day of December, 2018.
A. OMBWAYO
JUDGE