[2011] KEHC 2156 (KLR)
The court found that the Deputy Registrar did not have the jurisdiction under Order 49 of the Civil Procedure Rules to hear and determine the application for amendment of the Originating Summons. Furthermore, the amendments effected went beyond what was sought and allowed, introducing new causes of action and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2156 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Tabelga Chepngeno Tele; Plaintiff: Tablule Tele; Defendant: Kipkosge Tele; Defendant: Sally Chepkoech Misik; Defendant: Philip Kiplangat Korir; Defendant: The Chairman Bureti District Land Control Board; Defendant: The Land Registrar Kericho/Bureti Districts
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 97 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Amendment of Originating Summons and Related Procedural Applications
- Outcome
- Orders of the Deputy Registrar set aside; amended Originating Summons expunged; costs awarded to Respondents for specified dates; application for directions to proceed to hearing.
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Powers of Deputy Registrar, Procedural Fairness, Land Disputes
- 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
Tabelga Chepngeno Tele
Plaintiff
Tablule Tele
Plaintiff
Kipkosge Tele
Defendant
Sally Chepkoech Misik
Defendant
Philip Kiplangat Korir
Defendant
The Chairman Bureti District Land Control Board
Defendant
The Land Registrar Kericho/Bureti Districts
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Amendment of Originating Summons and Related Procedural Applications
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction to grant the amendment of the Originating Summons.
- 2 Whether the amendment introducing new causes of action and parties was properly allowed.
- 3 Whether the ex parte application for amendment was procedurally fair to the Respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Deputy Registrar did not have the jurisdiction under Order 49 of the Civil Procedure Rules to hear and determine the application for amendment of the Originating Summons. Furthermore, the amendments effected went beyond what was sought and allowed, introducing new causes of action and parties without proper application or notice to the Respondents. The process was procedurally unfair as the Respondents were not served or given an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the orders made by the Deputy Registrar on 19/3/2010 were set aside, and the purported amended Originating Summons filed on 23/9/2010 was expunged from the record. The Applicants were ordered to pay...
Court Disposition
Orders of the Deputy Registrar set aside; amended Originating Summons expunged; costs awarded to Respondents for specified dates; application for directions to proceed to hearing.
Orders
- The orders made by the Deputy Registrar on 19/3/2010 are set aside.
- The purported amended Originating Summons filed on 23/9/2010 is expunged from the record.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KERICHO
CIVIL SUIT NO. 97 OF 2001 (O.S)
TABELGA CHEPNGENO TELE………...........…………………………1ST PLAINTIFF
TABLULE TELE………. ………………….....………………..................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KIPKOSGE TELE……………………........................................................1ST DEFENDANT
SALLY CHEPKOECH MISIK……………..…..........……………………..2ND DEFENDANT
PHILIP KIPLANGAT KORIR………………............……………………..3RD DEFENDANT
THE CHAIRMAN BURETI DISTRICT
LAND CONTROL BOARD............………………………………………....4TH DEFENDANT
THE LAND REGISTRAR
KERICHO/BURETI DISTRICTS......................…………………………….5TH DEFENDANT
RULING
The suit herein was commenced by Messrs Tabelga Chepngeno Tele and Tablule Tele(the Applicants) by way of Originating Summons dated 28/11/2001 against Kipkosge Tele (the Respondents). On 18/4/2009, the Respondents had filed an application dated 15/4/2009 seeking directions in the suit. The hearing of directions came up before me on 26/1/2011 and again on 14/3/2011.
Mr. Siele Sigira, the learned Counsel for the Applicants, conceded that when the application for directions was pending, he went before the Deputy Registrar with an ex parte application to amend the Originating Summons and that he obtained orders to amend the Originating Summons. On 23/9/2010, a further amended originating summons was filed.
Mr. Oboso, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, took issue with the manner in which the amendment of the Originating Summons was procured. He was never served with the application for amendment of the Originating Summons, he said.
The application to amend the Originating Summons seems to have been prompted by the Respondents’ application to strike out the Originating Summons which was however dismissed. Mr. Oboso contends that the amended Originating Summons is prejudicial to his clients not least because it introduces a new cause of action and an additional party.
I have perused the pleadings in this suit. The application dated 1/2/2010 on the basis of which the Deputy Registrar allowed amendment was heard on 17/3/2010 and a Ruling was delivered on 19/3/2010 allowing the application in terms of prayers 1 and 2 of the application dated 1/2/2010 which prayed in prayers 1 and 2.
“1. That the Attorney General be joined as the 6th Defendant to the suit.”
“2. That the necessary directions be given.”
The filed amended Originating Summons has not only added the AG as a new party, it has also effected other amendments which were neither sought in the application nor allowed. Moreover, the Deputy Registrar did not have power to hear or determine the application which was not based on any of the rules stipulated in Order 49of the Civil Procedure Rules (2010) giving the Deputy Registrar power to hear and determine applications.
It is my finding that save for the joining of the AG as a new party, the amendment effected to the Originating Summons was not allowed by the Deputy Registrar and even if it was, which is not the case, it would have been of no effect as the Deputy Registrar had no power under Order 49to hear and determine the application.
In the light of the above, I hereby set aside the orders made by the Deputy Registrar on 19/3/2010 and expunge from the record the purported amended Originating Summons filed in Court on 23/9/2010. It was improper for Mr. Siele Sigira to go behind the back of his colleague to prosecute ex parte the application dated 01/02/2010. It must be appreciated that parties to a suit must all be given the right to be heard unless the law allows a matter to be heard ex parte.
In the circumstances of this case, I order that the applicants shall pay to the Respondents the costs incurred on 26/1/2011, 14/03/2011, and today.
The application for directions dated 15/4/2009 filed by the Respondents shall be heard on 27/2/2011.
DATEDat KERICHO this 13th Day of April, 2011
G B M KARIUKI, SC
RESIDENT JUDGE
COUNSEL APPEARING
Mr. Siele Sigira, Advocate, for the Applicants
Mr. Oboso, Advocate, for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents
Mr. R. Koech, Court clerk