Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedKitale ELC No. 8 of 2016 (consolidated with a companion ELC suit; second suit number not stated in the judgment)· [2019] KEELC 1440 (KLR)

Samuel Mbuthia Macharia v Beatrice Wangari [2019] KEELC 1440 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 September 2019
1,306 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kitale (Mwangi Njoroge, J) determines two identical Notices of Motion dated 5/4/2019, filed on 8/4/2019 in two related suits by plaintiffs Samuel Mbuthia Macharia and Elizabeth Wambui Maina against the common defendant, Beatrice Wangare. The court first consolidated the applications for purposes of one ruling. Each application sought a stay of judgment scheduled for delivery on 29/4/2019 and leave to amend the plaints to add a prayer for refund of the purchase price, in addition to the originally pleaded specific performance. The plaintiffs bought the suit land under sale agreements and took vacant possession, but the defendant had charged the title and could not transfer; they learned of the charge during the defence hearing. The defendant opposed, asserting the plaintiffs knew of the charge at close of pleadings, that the agreements were void by operation of law, and that the plaintiffs were entitled only to a refund, which she was willing to make though disputing the amount. The court held that specific performance is an equitable, discretionary remedy while a refund is a legal remedy properly sought in the alternative; the defendant had contemplated a refund and would suffer no prejudice; and amendments should in principle be allowed at any time before final judgment (Castellino -vs- Eastern Bakery Limited). The nine-month delay and counsel's inadvertent slip were not extreme. The court allowed prayers (b) and (c) of both applications. Costs, though prayed for, were not addressed in the orders.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave to amend the plaints to add a claim for refund of the purchase price should be granted after closure of the plaintiffs' case

Holding

Leave granted; the amendment sought would not prejudice the defendant and the delay was not extreme

Reasoning

The court held that specific performance is an equitable remedy discretionary in nature, while a refund is a legal remedy properly sought in the alternative. The defendant had already contemplated a refund in her replying affidavit, disputing only the amount, so no prejudice would arise. Inadvertent slips by counsel occur in litigation, and the delay of about nine months after knowledge of the charge, considered against the age of the suits, was not extreme.

p. 2
02

Whether a defendant's knowledge of the charge and the delay in seeking amendment disentitle the plaintiffs from the orders sought

Holding

It did not; the delay was not extreme and the failure to plead refund was an inadvertent slip of counsel

Reasoning

The court weighed the plaintiffs' knowledge of the charge from the amended defence against the approximately nine-month delay in filing the applications. Balancing this against the age of the suits and the absence of prejudice to the defendant, the court concluded the delay was not extreme and that technicalities should not defeat substantive justice as urged under Article 159(2)(d) and (e) of the Constitution.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Amendments to pleadings should in principle be allowed at any time before final judgment.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The two Notices of Motion dated 5/4/2019 are consolidated for the purpose of issuance of one ruling
  2. 2.Prayer No. (b) of the applications granted (stay of judgment scheduled for 29/4/2019 pending hearing and determination of the application inter partes)
  3. 3.Prayer No. (c) of the applications granted (leave to amend the pleadings in the terms of the amended plaints annexed to the applications)

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159 2(d) and (e)

Cases cited (5)

  • Joseph S. Wafula -vs- Elena Chepkurgat Talam
    [2019] eKLR
  • Central Kenya Ltd -vs- Trust Bank Ltd
    [2000] EA 365
  • Pamela Alividza Abwao -vs- Christian Lwanga
    Kitale ELC No. 22 of 2018
  • Mose Nyambega Ondieki -vs- The Vice Chancellor Masai Mara University & 2 Others
    ELC No. 2234 of 2017
  • Castellino -vs- Eastern Bakery Limited
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (provision not expressly stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Samuel Mbuthia Macharia v Beatrice Wangari [2019] KEELC 1440 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Kitale ELC No. 8 of 2016 (consolidated with a companion ELC suit; second suit number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1440/eng@2019-09-30

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