[2015] KEELC 60 (KLR)
The court found that the application for leave to amend the plaint was properly served and that the inclusion of the intended 7th defendant, Wilson Miriti Thaara, was necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the dispute regarding occupation of the suit land. The court held that the amendment would not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELC 60 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Thanantu Investments Ltd; Defendant: Aphaxad Kirimi Mutwiri; Defendant: Mboroki Lithara; Defendant: Mwonthea M’Anampiu; Defendant: Jeremiah Kiramana; Defendant: Japhet Muthinja M’Tuerandu; Defendant: Adeline Kaimuri Kibuto
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 161 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Plaint
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Adjudication Section 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
Thanantu Investments Ltd
Plaintiff
Aphaxad Kirimi Mutwiri
Defendant
Mboroki Lithara
Defendant
Mwonthea M’Anampiu
Defendant
Jeremiah Kiramana
Defendant
Japhet Muthinja M’Tuerandu
Defendant
Adeline Kaimuri Kibuto
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the plaint to include the intended 7th defendant.
- 2 Whether the amendment is necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the dispute regarding occupation of Land Parcel No. 1827 ANTUAMBURI ADJUDICATION SECTION.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for leave to amend the plaint was properly served and that the inclusion of the intended 7th defendant, Wilson Miriti Thaara, was necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the dispute regarding occupation of the suit land. The court held that the amendment would not prejudice any of the parties and was brought in good faith. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to allow the amendment in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules and the inherent powers of the court to ensure justice is done.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Leave is granted to the plaintiff to amend the plaint in terms of the annexed draft amended plaint.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE NO 161 OF 2004
THANANTU INVESTMENTS LTD...................................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
APHAXAD KIRIMI MUTWIRI..........................................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
MBOROKI LITHARA......................................................2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
MWONTHEA M’ANAMPIU............................................3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
JEREMIAH KIRAMANA....................................................4TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
JAPHET MUTHINJA M’TUERANDU...............................5TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
ADELINE KAIMURI KIBUTO............................................6TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
This application is dated 17/09/2015. It is predicated upon Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 8 Rule 3 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010. The application seeks orders:-
THATthis application be certified as urgent.
THATthis Honourable Court be pleased to grant the Plaintiff/applicant leave to amend his Plaint in terms of the annexed draft amended Plaint.
THATthe costs of this application be provided for:-
The application is supported by the affidavit of COSMAS MUGAMBI ROMANO and has the following grounds:-
The amendment is necessary for the determination of the question as to the occupation of Land Parcel No. 1827 ANTUAMBURI ADJUDICATION SECTION by the defendants/ Respondents and the intended 7th defendant.
The application is brought in good faith and in the spirit of fair determination of this suit.
At the time of filing the suit. WILSON MIRITI THAARA the intended 7th defendant had not taken a portion out of the Suitland.
The amendment will enable expeditious resolution of this suit as the occupation of the suit land by the intended 7th defendant and the other defendants is the subject matter of the suit.
I find that the application has been properly served upon all parties. I also find that the inclusion of WILSON MIRITI THAARA as the 7th Defendant will not be prejudicial to any of the parties. In the circumstances, the application is allowed.
Costs shall be in the cause.
Delivered in open Court at Meru this 9th day of November, 2015 in the presence of:-
CC: Lilian /Daniel
Rimita for the a Applicant/Plaintiff
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE