Kamundi & 2 others v Registered Trustee, Gospel of God Church & 5 others (Civil Appeal 198 of 2018) [2026] KECA 1321 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that parties must generally be allowed to amend their court pleadings unless the other side would suffer real, uncompensatable prejudice.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the appellants' application dated 2nd July, 2018 seeking leave to amend their statement of defence to include a counter-claim and enjoin the Registrar of Societies is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the appellants' application for leave to amend the defence to include a counter-claim and join the Registrar of Societies
The appeal was allowed; the ruling of the ELC was set aside and leave to amend granted because the Registrar of Societies is a necessary party and the counter-claim relates to the suit property
The Court held that the power to allow amendments is discretionary but guided by Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and the principle that amendments should be freely allowed absent prejudice. The Registrar of Societies was central to the dispute over the church registrations, the counter-claim related to the suit property, and the 1st respondent showed no prejudice and no bad faith. The first appellate court, re-assessing the record, found no cogent reason for the trial court's refusal.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's exercise of discretion unless the discretion was misdirected or the decision is clearly wrong and has resulted in injustice
- Amendments to pleadings should be freely allowed at any stage of the proceedings provided no prejudice or injustice that cannot be compensated in costs will result to the other party
- Under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court may amend pleadings at any time, and all necessary amendments shall be made to determine the real question in issue
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed
- 2.Ruling and subsequent order of the ELC delivered on 3rd October, 2018 set aside
- 3.Substituted with an order granting the appellants leave to amend their defence to include the counterclaim as prayed in prayer 2 of the notice of motion dated 2nd July, 2018
- 4.Appellants have 14 days from the date of the judgment to file their amended statement of defence
- 5.1st respondent shall bear costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the Environment and Land Court (interlocutory appeal against a ruling); no specific provision quoted in the judgment
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The ruling and subsequent order of the ELC delivered on 3rd October, 2018, is hereby set aside, and substituted with an order of this court granting the appellants leave to amend their defence to include the counterclaim as prayed in prayer 2 of the notice of motion dated 2nd July, 2018.
all amendments should be freely allowed and at any stage of the proceedings, provided that the amendment or joinder as the case may be, will not result in prejudice or injustice to the other party which cannot properly be compensated for in costs
An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of the trial court’s discretion unless it is satisfied that the court in exercising its discretion misdirected itself in some matters and as a result arrived at a decision that was erroneous
without any evidence that the application has been made in bad faith, we see no reason why the appellants should be denied the chance to amend their statements of defence.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is dated '3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026', a date in the future relative to typical record timelines; recorded as printed.
The 1st respondent's submissions were filed after the plenary hearing but were nonetheless considered; a procedural irregularity noted by the court itself.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamundi & 2 others v Registered Trustee, Gospel of God Church & 5 others (Civil Appeal 198 of 2018) [2026] KECA 1321 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1321/eng@2026-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.