SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Githukurio v Mungai (The legal representative of Stephen Mungai Waita) & 3 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 75 of 2019) [2025] KECA 435 (KLR) (7 March 2025) (Ruling)

[2025] KECA 435 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
435
Citation
[2025] KECA 435 (KLR)
Decided
7 March 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureApplication for leave to amend the notice of appealCoramJudge Oundo, M.C. Oundo, PM GACHOKA
Holding

The application is merited and the applicant is directed to amend his pleadings as proposed.

Facts

The applicant initiated proceedings against Stephen Mungai Waita and others in Nyahururu ELC Petition No. 20 of 2017. Stephen Mungai Waita died on 5th February 2018, and the trial court granted leave to substitute him with Naomi Njoki Mungai, the administrator of his estate.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's application for leave to amend the notice of appeal is merited due to the inordinate delay and the fact that the respondent had the opportunity to apply for striking out the notice of appeal.
  2. Whether the amendment of the name of the 1st respondent will change the character of the dispute.

Reasoning

The court finds the application merited due to the good faith of the applicant and the lack of prejudice to the respondent. The amendment is allowed but with a time limit.

Outcome

The application for leave to amend the notice of appeal is granted.

Orders

  • The applicant is directed to amend his pleadings as proposed within seven days from the date of this order.
  • If the amendment is not made within the time limit, the order shall lapse automatically without further reference to this Court.
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case