Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in judgment· [2019] KEELC 4313 (KLR)

Chris Munga N. Bichage v Registrar of Titles, Nairobi & 2 others [2019] KEELC 4313 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
11 March 2019
2,844 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed a plaintiff to add a new defendant and amend the land dispute claim two years into the case, ruling delay alone isn't fatal before trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kitale (Mwangi Njoroge J) on a notice of motion dated 8 January 2019 by the plaintiff seeking leave to amend the plaint and to convert the interested party, Alfred Momanyi Nyairo, from an interested party into a defendant. The application was opposed only by the interested party, who argued that an order of 29 November 2016 had enjoined him as an interested party, that the pleadings as filed were complete, that the plaintiff was guilty of laches after two years, and that the amendments would introduce a new cause of action and confuse the issues. The court examined the record and found no express order of joinder dated 29 November 2016; the only order was one of 28 November 2016 directing service. The interested party's joinder arguments therefore collapsed, and the court invoked Order 10 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules to enjoin him as a defendant, noting his possession of the suit land, his alleged benefit from the cancellation of the plaintiff's title, and the desirability of avoiding multiplicity of suits. On laches, the court distinguished Unga Ltd v Magina Ltd and John Nahashon Mwangi v Kenya Finance Bank Ltd, which involved delays of thirteen and twenty-seven years, holding that a two-year delay in a suit not yet heard, with active interlocutory proceedings, was not inexcusable. No prejudice to the interested party was demonstrated. The application was allowed in terms of prayers (a) and (b); the amended plaint was to be filed and served within fourteen days, with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether there was an existing court order enjoining the interested party that would bar re-joinder as defendant

Holding

No express order of joinder as interested party existed; the only order was of 28/11/2016 for service, so arguments premised on such an order collapsed

Reasoning

The court examined the record and found no proceedings of 29/11/2016 as claimed. What exists is an order of 28/11/2016 that the interested party be served with the application. Since the interested party was not properly on the record, the court could invoke Order 10 Rule 2 to enjoin him as a defendant without recanting any prior order.

p. 2
02

Whether the two-year delay rendered the application res judicata by laches

Holding

No; a two-year delay, amid active interlocutory proceedings and before hearing, did not constitute laches

Reasoning

The court distinguished the cited authorities, which involved delays of thirteen to twenty-seven years and dismissed suits. Here the suit had not proceeded to hearing, interlocutory applications were recently resolved by consent, and no party would be prejudiced. The extreme scenarios in the cited cases were held inapplicable.

p. 3
03

Whether the amendments would prejudice the interested party

Holding

No prejudice was demonstrated; the general rule that amendments be liberally allowed applied

Reasoning

The court found the proposed orders were those ordinarily sought against a co-defendant with substantial interest in the subject matter, including injunction, mesne profits, nullification of title and eviction. No defence such as limitation would be lost, and no evidence of prejudice was found in the submissions or replying affidavit.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A party may apply to amend pleadings at any time before judgment, and amendments should be liberally allowed unless serious injustice or prejudice is shown
  • A court may order joinder of all parties interested in the same subject matter in one suit to stem multiplicity of litigation

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application dated 8/1/2019 granted in terms of prayers (a) and (b) - leave to amend the plaint and joinder of Alfred Momanyi Nyairo as a defendant
  2. 2.Amended plaint to be filed and served within 14 days of the order
  3. 3.Costs of the application to be costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 10 Rule 2
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 9 rule 9 and 10; Order 8 rule 3; Order 12 rule 7; Order 51 Rule 1 (as cited in John Nahashon Mwangi case)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159

Cases cited (15)

  • Patrick Vonyoli Kavuli Vs Board of Management KMTC and 2 others
    2009 eKLR
  • John Nahashon Mwangi vs Kenya Finance Bank Ltd (In Liquidation)
    2015 eKLR
  • Anne Njoki Murani Vs Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd And 2 Others
    2013 eKLR
  • Unga Ltd Vs Magina Ltd
    2014 eKLR
  • Allen Vs McAlpine & Sons Ltd
    [1968] 1 ALL ER 543
  • Central Kenya Limited Vs Trust Bank Limited and others
    Civil Appeal 222 of 1998
  • Leroka Vs Middle Africa Finance Company Limited
    [1990] KLR 549
  • Eastern Bakery Vs Castelino
    [1958] E.A. 461
  • Kuloba Vs Oduol
    [2001] 1 E A 101
  • D.T. Dobie & Company Vs Muchina
    [1982] KLR 1
  • Weldon Vs Neal
    (1887) 19 QBD 394
  • Hilton Vs Sutton Steam Laundry
    [1946] K.B 65
  • Chimanlal K.N. Shah & others Vs Trust Agencies Limited
    High Court case 1387 of 2001 [2012] eKLR
  • Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited Vs Mary Wamaitha and 13 others
    High Court case 237 of 2007
  • James Ochieng Oduol Vs Richard Kuloba
    Civil Appeal 2 of 2002 [2008] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 10 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the court's inherent power to amend pleadings before judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chris Munga N. Bichage v Registrar of Titles, Nairobi & 2 others [2019] KEELC 4313 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4313/eng@2019-03-11

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