Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the extract· [2022] KEELC 25 (KLR)

Waruburu (Suing as the administrator ad Litem of the Estate of Francis Wabururu Njau Deceased) v Kagia & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 750A of 2017) [2022] KEELC 25 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 April 2022
1,924 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court allowed a plaintiff to amend his pleadings but refused to 'reinstate' his suit because it was only stayed, not dismissed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, administrator of the estate of Francis Wabururu Njau, moved the court by Notice of Motion seeking reinstatement of his suit, previously stayed pending determination of Milimani ELC No. 751 of 2003 (Bernard Kagia Njuguna v Francis Wabururu), and leave to amend his plaint to plead newly obtained certified copies of pleadings and proceedings in earlier suits concerning the proprietary history of L.R Karai/Karai/1373. The 1st Defendant opposed the application as res judicata, vexatious and an abuse of process, noting long-settled litigation and occupation. The 2nd Defendant said he was wrongly sued, having already transferred the suit property back to the 1st Defendant pursuant to an order in a criminal case. The court framed a single issue: whether the application was merited. On reinstatement, it held that reinstatement presupposes a dismissed suit, whereas this suit was merely stayed and remains in existence; the prayer for reinstatement therefore failed. On amendment, relying on Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 8 Rules 3 and 5, the court held that amendments are allowed liberally to determine the real controversy, and since the Milimani suit had abated, the plaintiff could amend, with corresponding leave granted to the defendants. The application was allowed in terms of prayers 2 to 5, with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit was fit for reinstatement

Holding

The prayer for reinstatement failed because the suit was only stayed, not dismissed, and remains in existence.

Reasoning

Order 12 Rule 6 CPR applies to suits dismissed under that Order, e.g. for failure to prosecute or non-attendance. None of those scenarios was demonstrated. The suit was merely stayed pending Milimani ELC No. 751 of 2003, which has since abated. Since the suit still exists, reinstatement would be an exercise in vain; the prayer was unnecessary and failed.

p. 4
02

Whether the plaint should be amended

Holding

Amendment allowed under Order 8 Rules 3 and 5 and Section 100 CPA, with corresponding leave to defendants to amend.

Reasoning

Amendments may be made at any time before judgment. The Milimani suit, whose pendency had stayed this suit, has abated, so the issues can no longer be canvassed there. Amendments are allowed liberally to enable determination of the real questions in controversy. To level the playing field, defendants were given corresponding leave to amend.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Reinstatement presupposes a suit that was dismissed; a merely stayed suit cannot be reinstated.
  • Amendment of pleadings is allowed liberally at any stage before judgment so as to enable the court to determine the real issues in controversy.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is allowed in terms of prayers 2 to 5
  2. 2.Leave granted to the plaintiff to amend his plaint, the amended plaint deemed duly filed upon payment of requisite fees
  3. 3.Defendants granted corresponding leave to amend their pleadings if need be
  4. 4.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 6
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 7
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 100
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 8 Rules 3, 4, 5 & 7
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 12 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1

Cases cited (6)

  • Central Kenya Ltd v Trust Bank Ltd & 5 others
    [2000] eKLR
  • Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 others v Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Henderson vs Henderson
    (1843-60) ALL E.R 378
  • Bernard Kagia Njuguna vs. Francis Wabururu
    Milimani ELC No. 751 of 2003
  • Mbuthia Njoroge vs. Benard Kagia
    Nairobi HCCA No. 49 of 1982
  • Nbi ELC No. 715 of 2003
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3A and 100 Civil Procedure Act; Order 8 Rules 3, 4, 5 & 7 and Order 51 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Waruburu (Suing as the administrator ad Litem of the Estate of Francis Wabururu Njau Deceased) v Kagia & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 750A of 2017) [2022] KEELC 25 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/25/eng@2022-04-28

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