[2007] KEHC 3521 (KLR)

[2007] KEHC 3521 (KLR)

The court found that the draft amendment to the defence did not set out sufficient facts to support the plea that the suit was filed out of time, as it failed to indicate the period of delay or provide particulars necessary for the limitation defence. The judge held that in matters involving land, a hearing is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] KEHC 3521 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Thetu Mwangi Migwi; Defendant: James Munene Ndubi; Defendant: Hillary Munene Kamau
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Embu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 69 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Amend Defence
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Preliminary Objection
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions Preliminary Objection

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thetu Mwangi Migwi

Plaintiff

James Munene Ndubi

Defendant

Hillary Munene Kamau

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Amend Defence

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should be granted leave to amend their defence to plead that the suit was filed out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the draft amendment sufficiently sets out facts to support the limitation defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the draft amendment to the defence did not set out sufficient facts to support the plea that the suit was filed out of time, as it failed to indicate the period of delay or provide particulars necessary for the limitation defence. The judge held that in matters involving land, a hearing is necessary to establish whether the suit is indeed time-barred. Consequently, the application for leave to amend the defence was dismissed as it did not meet the threshold for granting such leave under the Civil Procedure Rules.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application for leave to amend the defence is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.