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

Oyolla v Awange & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E035 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 1708 (KLR) (4 April 2024) (Ruling)

[2024] KEELC 1708 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
1708
Citation
[2024] KEELC 1708 (KLR)
Decided
4 April 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureApplication for Leave to Amend PlaintCoramOGUTTU MBOYA
Holding

The Application is meritorious and the Plainti/Applicant is allowed to amend the Plaint to include a specific prayer against the 3rd Defendant.

Facts

The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the Defendants hold the suit property in trust for him. The Plaintiff did not seek a specific prayer against the 3rd Defendant, who is the registered owner of the property.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application for Leave to amend the Plaint is meritorious
  2. Whether the Defendant/Respondents shall suffer any prejudice or grave injustice, not compensable by an award of costs

Reasoning

The Plaintiff's failure to include a specific prayer against the 3rd Defendant in the original suit does not introduce a new cause of action. The amendment has a peripheral impact on the suit.

Outcome

The Application is allowed.

Orders

  • The Plainti/Applicant shall proceed to file and serve the amended Plaint within 7 days from the date of this ruling.
  • Costs of the Application are awarded to the Defendants/Respondents in the sum of Kes. 15,000/=, payable to the 1st and 2nd Defendants and the 3rd Defendant each

Remedies

  • Allowance of the Application for Leave to amend the Plaint

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
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