Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 13th November, 2017 in suit arising from Plaint dated 19th March, 2014)· [2018] KEELC 1451 (KLR)

Diana Kapeen & 2 others v Caroline Leina Lemomo & another [2018] KEELC 1451 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 September 2018
MKMohammed Noor Kullow
792 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 allowed land plaintiffs to update their lawsuit after getting letters of administration, confirming pleadings can be amended at any stage.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 13th November, 2017 in a land suit at the Environment and Land Court, Narok, in which the Applicant, Diana Kapeen, swearing with the authority of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs, sought leave to amend the Plaint dated 19th March, 2014 so that the draft amended plaint filed with the application would be deemed duly filed. The plaintiffs are children of the late Livingstone Koitamet Kapeen and Salome Nasieku and claim the suit land as their ancestral home, occupied for 44 years and the burial place of their parents. At the time of filing suit they had not taken out letters of administration for their late father's estate; having obtained a grant on 28th September, 2017, they sought to amend so that their father's interest in the land could be determined and their capacity regularized. The Respondents opposed, arguing the amendment was an afterthought brought late, sought to introduce a new cause of action, would alter their defence and counterclaim, and was made after pre-trial directions. The court framed one issue: whether grounds had been laid for amendment at that stage. Applying Order 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court held amendment may be allowed at any stage, found the application made in good faith without malafide, and rejected the claim that a new cause of action was introduced. The application was allowed, with the amended plaint to be served within 14 days, the Defendants given leave to amend their defence, and costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether amendment of the plaint should be allowed after pre-trial directions

Holding

Amendment allowed; it was made in good faith, sought to regularize the plaintiffs' capacity after obtaining letters of administration, and would enable the court to determine the real issues

Reasoning

The court applied the established test that amendments should be allowed where they enable determination of the real questions in controversy. The plaintiffs sought only to regularize their capacity by joining the estate of their deceased father, for whom they had obtained a grant. The court found no malafide and rejected the respondents' claim that a new cause of action was being introduced, holding that amendment may be permitted at any stage under Order 8 Rule 3.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Leave to amend a plaint is ordinarily granted where the amendment will determine the real issues between the parties and enable just and fair determination
  • A court may allow amendment to pleadings at any stage of the proceedings under Order 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the plaintiff to amend the plaint dated 19th March, 2014
  2. 2.The draft amended plaint filed with the Application deemed as duly filed upon payment of the requisite court fees
  3. 3.Amended plaint to be served on the Defendant within 14 days
  4. 4.Defendants granted leave to amend their defence accordingly
  5. 5.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 8 Rule 3
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules (amendment of pleadings)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Diana Kapeen & 2 others v Caroline Leina Lemomo & another [2018] KEELC 1451 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 13th November, 2017 in suit arising from Plaint dated 19th March, 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/1451/eng@2018-09-26

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