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

Timothy Morris Alala & another v African Touch Safaris Ltd & another [2019] KEHC 8205 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 8205 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
8205
Citation
[2019] KEHC 8205 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureApplication for amendment of defenceCoramS. M GITHINJI
Holding

The application is allowed as the amendment is necessary for determining the real question in controversy and does not change the cause of action.

Facts

The 1st plaintiff/applicant filed an application for amendment of the defence dated 17.3.2011, seeking a refund of Kshs. 10,000,000/- lost by the 1st plaintiff.

Issues

  1. whether the amendment of the defence is allowed
  2. whether the application is time barred

Reasoning

The court found that the amendment is necessary for determining the real question in controversy and that the application is not time barred. The court also considered the principles set out in Central Kenya Ltd v Trust Bank Ltd (2000) eKLR and AAT Holdings Limited v Diamond Shields International Ltd (2014) eKLR.

Outcome

The application is allowed.

Orders

  • The amendment of the defence is allowed

Remedies

  • Costs in the cause

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Order 8 rule 3
Cases cited (6)
  • John Mulwa Kang’aatu v Pan Africa Insurance (supra)
  • Central Kenya Ltd v Trust Bank Ltd (2000) eKLR
  • AAT Holdings Limited v Diamond Shields International Ltd (2014) eKLR
  • Bosire Ogero v Royal Media (2015) eKLR
  • Institute for social Accountability & Anor v Parliament of Kenya & 3 others (2014) eKLR
  • Okiya Omtatah & Anor v Bidco Africa and 4 others (2018) eKLR
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