Suresh Kumar Sofat & Sadina Sofat v Trustees of Kenya Assemblies of God & Nairobi City County [2022] KEELC 460 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed a landowner to update its defence with a 2016 title despite long delay, but made it pay the other side's legal costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether leave to amend the defence to plead a title issued in 2016 should be granted despite inordinate delay
Leave granted; the title pursuit and fraud were already captured in the original defence, so the amendment was not a new ground and was necessary for a fair and conclusive determination.
The court acknowledged the delay since the title was issued in 2016 was inordinate and unexplained. However, the 2013 defence had already referred to the pursuit of the title deed and had alleged illegal processing of the Plaintiffs' title, so the amendment did not introduce a genuinely new ground of defence or fraud. Weighing the discretion of the trial judge and the interest of a fair and conclusive determination, the court found the amendments ought to be allowed in the interest of justice.
Whether the Registrar of Titles should be enjoined given the two competing titles
The Chief Land Registrar and the Attorney General were enjoined as 3rd and 4th Defendants.
The court noted there were now two titles relating to the suit property - the Plaintiffs' LR No. 209/11281 and the 1st Defendant's title IR 181940/1 over L.R.209/15383. For proper determination of the question of validity of the competing titles, and given the Plaintiffs' submission that the validity of title could only be determined by enjoining the Registrar of Titles, the court directed joinder of the Chief Land Registrar and the Attorney General.
Legal principles established
#- Whether an amendment should be granted is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge guided by where justice lies.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 15th February 2021 is allowed but costs thereof are awarded to the Plaintiffs/Respondents.
- 2.The Chief Land Registrar and the Attorney General are enjoined in these proceedings as the 3rd & 4th Defendants respectively.
- 3.The 1st Defendant is directed to file and serve its amended pleadings within 14 days failure to which the orders granted herein shall lapse.
- 4.The Plaintiffs are to file and serve their response to the amended defence within 28 days from today and also serve their other pleadings upon the new parties within the same period.
- 5.The 3rd and 4th Defendants are granted 42 days from today to file their respective pleadings.
- 6.All parties are to file and serve their trial bundles within 60 days from today.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 8 Rules 3(1) and 5(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Ngalo & 2 others (Suing as the Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer Respectively of Githunguri Riverside Dwellers Self Help Group) v Njoroge[2023] KEELC 17961 (KLR)31 May 2023
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Suresh Kumar Sofat & Sadina Sofat v Trustees of Kenya Assemblies of God & Nairobi City County [2022] KEELC 460 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/460/eng@2022-01-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.