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 extract· [2022] KEELC 3381 (KLR)

Sai Holdings Limited; Prideinn Hotels & Investments Ltd & 3 others (Defendant) (Environment & Land Case 143 of 2013) [2022] KEELC 3381 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
27 July 2022
NMN.A. MATHEKA
1,142 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

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed parties can amend court documents late in a case if done honestly and fairly.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Two applications for leave to amend pleadings came before the court: the plaintiff's application dated March 16, 2022 under sections 1A, 1B & 3A and Order 8 of the Civil Procedure Act sought leave to amend the plaint, and the defendants' application dated April 4, 2022 under Order 8 Rule 3(5) and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules sought leave to amend their defence and counterclaim. The suit had been stayed since 2013 pending arbitration, having been filed to secure interim orders; arbitration ran until 2021 when the arbitrator upheld the defendants' objection on jurisdiction, returning the dispute to the court. The plaintiff argued the amendment was necessary for the court to determine the dispute and would cause no prejudice; the defendants opposed the plaintiff's application as an abuse of process, but the plaintiff did not oppose their own application. Relying on section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 8 Rule 5, and the authorities in AAT Holdings, Harrison C Kamau and Joseph Ochieng, the court held that amendments may be granted at any stage, however late, if made in good faith and without injustice, and that the proposed amendments flowed from the same cause of action. Both applications were granted as prayed, with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave to amend the plaint should be granted after the dispute returned from arbitration

Holding

Leave granted; the amendment is necessary to determine the real question in controversy and flows from the same cause of action

Reasoning

The suit had been stayed pending arbitration from 2013 until 2021 when the arbitrator upheld the defendants' jurisdiction objection, leaving this court to determine the dispute. The court invoked section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 8 Rule 5, and applied the principles in AAT Holdings and Harrison C Kamau, holding the amendment necessary, made in good faith, and causing no prejudice since it is essentially the same dispute.

p. 3
02

Whether the defendants' application to amend the defence and counterclaim should be allowed

Holding

Granted as prayed; the plaintiff did not oppose and no prejudice was alleged

Reasoning

The defendants' application under Order 8 Rule 3(5) and Order 51 sought leave to amend the defence and counterclaim, asserting no prejudice would be occasioned. The plaintiff did not oppose. Applying the same amendment principles, the court found both applications merited and granted them as prayed, with no orders as to costs.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The court has power to allow an amendment at any stage of the proceedings; however late, an amendment should be allowed if made in good faith and no injustice is caused

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiff is granted leave to amend the plaint as per the draft attached and the amended plaint deemed duly filed
  2. 2.The defendants are granted leave to amend their defence and counterclaim as per the annexed draft
  3. 3.No orders as to costs on both applications

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Actsections 1A, 1B, 3A, 100
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 8 Rule 5; Order 8 Rule 3(5); Order 51
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159

Cases cited (3)

  • AAT Holdings Limited v Diamond Shields International Ltd
    (2014) eKLR
  • Harrison C Kamau v Blue Shield Insurance Co. Ltd
    (2006) eKLR
  • Joseph Ochieng & 2 others v First National Bank of Chicago
    Civil Appeal No. 149 of 1999
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B & 3A and Order 8 of the Civil Procedure Act; section 100 Civil Procedure Act; Order 8 Rule 3(5) and Order 51 Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sai Holdings Limited; Prideinn Hotels & Investments Ltd & 3 others (Defendant) (Environment & Land Case 143 of 2013) [2022] KEELC 3381 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3381/eng@2022-07-27

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