Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2016] KEELC 472 (KLR)

Philip Kipkemoi Tonui & another v Johana Kipngeno Langat [2016] KEELC 472 (KLR)

Environment & Land Court
21 September 2016
MSMUNYAO SILA
689 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to let plaintiffs add government officials to their land case because they explained nothing they wanted from them.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs, who had sued Johana Kipngeno Langat and Joel Kiptoo Chepkwony over Plots Nos. 799 and 800 Kamara Settlement Scheme, alleging that the defendants purported to be allottees using fake allotment letters, sought by an application dated 16 December 2015 leave to amend their plaint filed on 23 June 2014. They wished to enjoin the Attorney General, the Chief Land Registrar and the Director Land Settlement and Adjudication as defendants, saying they wanted to bring on board everybody involved in the transactions under question. When the application came up for inter partes hearing, neither Mr. Andama for the defendants nor Mr. Mbaka for the State Law Office opposed it. Despite the lack of opposition, the court declined the application. Examining the draft amended plaint, the judge found that save for adding the three proposed defendants in the title of the case, there was absolutely nothing pleaded for or against them in the body of the plaint, they were not even described, and nowhere was it said why they were being sued. The court held that a party is not sued for the fun of it; there must be something a litigant wishes to bring out against, or orders sought against, a party. Allowing an amendment that merely places a person in the title adds and removes nothing. The leave requirement exists to enable the court sift frivolous amendments from those with substance, and this one had none. The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs, the plaintiffs being left free to file another application to amend.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave to amend the plaint should be granted where the draft amended plaint only shows the new defendants in the title of the suit

Holding

The application for amendment was dismissed because the draft amended plaint added the three proposed defendants only in the title, with nothing pleaded for or against them and no prayers sought against them; allowing such an amendment would serve no purpose

Reasoning

The court examined the draft amended plaint and found that, apart from adding the three proposed defendants to the title, nothing was pleaded against them, they were not described, and no reason was given for suing them. The court held that a party is not sued without purpose and that an amendment must bring out something against, or seek orders against, a newly added party. The leave requirement exists to sift frivolous amendments from substantial ones, and this amendment had no substance.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A party is not sued without purpose; an amendment that only adds a party to the title of a suit, without pleading anything against that party or seeking any orders against them, serves no purpose and should not be allowed
  • The requirement of leave before amendment enables the court to sift frivolous proposed amendments from those which have substance

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 16 December 2015 seeking leave to amend the plaint is dismissed/declined
  2. 2.No orders as to costs - each party to bear their own costs (none of the parties opposed the application)
  3. 3.The plaintiffs are free to file another application to amend for consideration
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; civil procedure rules on amendment of pleadings

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Philip Kipkemoi Tonui & another v Johana Kipngeno Langat [2016] KEELC 472 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/472/eng@2016-09-21

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.