[2015] KEHC 3181 (KLR)
The court found that the application to amend the plaint was unmerited due to the inordinate delay, as the decision being challenged was made in 2004, over ten years prior to the application. The court held that such delay was unjustified and amounted to laches, and that granting the amendment would be prejudicial...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 3181 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Wilberforce B. Tenge; Defendant: Johnthan Malemo; Defendant: Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 22 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Amend Plaint
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- SN Mukunya
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Delay and Laches, Abuse of Process
- 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
Wilberforce B. Tenge
Plaintiff
Johnthan Malemo
Defendant
Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Amend Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the plaint to substitute the issue of fraud with illegality.
- 2 Whether the delay in seeking amendment is inordinate and prejudicial to the defendants.
- 3 Whether the application amounts to an abuse of the court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application to amend the plaint was unmerited due to the inordinate delay, as the decision being challenged was made in 2004, over ten years prior to the application. The court held that such delay was unjustified and amounted to laches, and that granting the amendment would be prejudicial to the defendants and an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application for leave to amend the plaint is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
CIVIL SUIT NO.22 OF 2011
WILBERFORCE B. TENGE…………………………………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JOHNTHAN MALEMO…………....………………….….1ST DEFENDANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL………………..…………...…..2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
The applicant prays for leave to amend his plaint. He says that he intends to amend the plaint and remove the issue of fraud and substitute it with one issue of illegality. He argues that the amendment shall assist in determination of the real issues. He argues that the defendant shall not suffer any prejudice from the orders sought.
The application is opposed by the respondent. It was argued that the application was to defeat the defence filed on 15/2/2011. Further that through the intended amendment, the plaintiff is filing an appeal or a Judicial Review. That this is an abuse of the process of the Court the decision being complained of being made in the year 2004. That the applicant are guilty of latches.
This application is unmerited.The decision being challenged was made in 2004 over 10 years ago.The delay is inordinate.
The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
DATED at BUNGOMA this8thday ofJuly,2015
S. MUKUNYA
JUDGE