[2024] KEELC 14059 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's request to further amend the plaint was justified, as the need for amendment arose after the conclusion of succession proceedings and the discovery of alleged fraud. The court held that the fact the applicant had previously amended the plaint did not bar further amendments,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 14059 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Patrick Maina Waweru; Defendant: David Aida Riony; Defendant: Uasin Gishu County Registrar; Defendant: Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 259 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application for Leave to Further Amend Plaint
- Outcome
- Application for leave to further amend plaint allowed.
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Leave of Court, Fraud in 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
Patrick Maina Waweru
Plaintiff
David Aida Riony
Defendant
Uasin Gishu County Registrar
Defendant
Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application for Leave to Further Amend Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to further amend the plaint to include particulars of fraud discovered after succession proceedings.
- 2 Whether granting the amendment would prejudice the defendants or amount to an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's request to further amend the plaint was justified, as the need for amendment arose after the conclusion of succession proceedings and the discovery of alleged fraud. The court held that the fact the applicant had previously amended the plaint did not bar further amendments, especially since the case had not yet taken off. The court emphasized that amendments should be allowed where they do not prejudice the respondent and do not introduce a new cause of action. The respondent's arguments regarding delay and abuse of process were not persuasive, as the amendments were prompted by new information and the proceedings had not advanced to a stage where...
Court Disposition
Application for leave to further amend plaint allowed.
Orders
- Leave is granted to the plaintiff to further amend the plaint.
- The amended plaint shall be filed within 14 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Waweru v Riony & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 259 of 2016) [2024] KEELC 14059 (KLR) (16 December 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 14059 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Environment & Land Case 259 of 2016
EO Obaga, J
December 16, 2024
Between
Patrick Maina Waweru
Plaintiff
and
David Aida Riony
1st Defendant
Uasin Gishu County Registrar
2nd Defendant
Attorney General
3rd Defendant
Ruling
1. This is a ruling in respect of a notice of motion dated 7. 3.2024 in which the Plaintiff/Applicant seeks leave to further amend his plaint. The Applicant contends that it has become necessary to amend the plaint because after the conclusion of succession proceedings, he discovered several aspects of fraud which he intends to include in the further amended plaint. He states that the said amendments will not prejudice the 1st Defendant/Respondent in any way.
2. The application was opposed by the 1st Defendant/Respondent through a replying affidavit sworn on 3. 5.2024 in which the Respondent states that the application by the Applicant is an abuse of the process of court in that the Applicant was given opportunity to amend the plaint which he did but failed to incorporate the particulars of fraud which he now seeks to incorporate.
3. The Respondent further contends that the application is meant to delay the finalization of this case and the amendments will prejudice him and in any case the application has been brought after 8 years the suit having been instituted in 2016.
4. Though the parties had agreed to file written submissions neither party filed submissions. I have considered the application for amendment and the opposition to the same by the 1st Respondent. The principles for grant of leave to amend are now very clear. Leave to amend should be freely granted where the same will not prejudice the Respondent and where same does not introduce a new cause of action.
5. This case has not taken off. The fact that the Applicant had earlier on amended his plaint is not bar to further amendments. The Applicant has indicated that the amendment was necessary after succession proceedings were concluded.
6. Amendments can be made at any stage in the proceedings before close of the case. I therefore find that the Applicant’s application is well merited. I allow the same and direct that the amended plaint should be filed within 14 days. Costs of this application shall be in the cause.It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET ON THIS 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024. E. OBAGAJUDGEIn the virtual absence of parties who were aware of the date of delivery of ruling.Court Assistant –LabanE. OBAGAJUDGE16TH DECEMBER, 2024