Bathawab Investment Limited v Abdulhafedh aka Zubedi & 4 others (Environment & Land Case 330 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 3597 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed a land buyer to amend its case and add a new defendant, ruling prompt action and no real prejudice outweigh technical objections.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application was filed after inordinate delay
The application was filed timeously upon the Plaintiff learning of the proposed 6th Defendant's existence
The Plaintiff first learned of the proposed 6th Defendant through an email dated 11/4/24 and filed the application on 1/5/24. The court found no evidence of inordinate delay and noted the hearing had only just commenced with PW1 yet to be re-examined.
Whether the amendment introduces a new cause of action
No new cause of action; the claim against the proposed 6th Defendant arises from the same series of transactions
The claim against the proposed 6th Defendant stems from the same transactions concerning the purchase of the suit land, and the amendment flows from admissions made in ELC 136 of 2009. No departure from the existing cause of action was demonstrated.
Whether the cause of action against the proposed 6th Defendant is statute barred
The time-bar objection was rejected because the proposed 6th Defendant was adjudged owner of the land in 2023, constituting exceptional circumstances
Although the cause of action is said to have arisen in 2011, the land recovery claim carries a 12-year limitation bar. The proposed 6th Defendant was only adjudged owner of the suit land in 2023 and has itself enjoined the Plaintiff in related proceedings, so the limitation objection is not maintainable.
Whether any party would suffer prejudice if the amendment is allowed
The only prejudice is delay, which can be ameliorated by an award of costs
The court considered that prejudice arises from unexplained delay or inability to defend a totally different claim. Here the only prejudice is the delay in the hearing, already derailed once, which is compensable in costs.
Legal principles established
#- Amendments should be freely allowed at any stage provided no prejudice or injustice not compensable by costs results
- Amendment to defeat a limitation defence may only be allowed in exceptional and peculiar circumstances
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant to file and serve its amended plaint together with its pretrial bundles within 14 days from the date of the Ruling, failing which the orders lapse automatically
- 2.The Plaintiff to serve the proposed 6th Defendant with all the pleadings in the suit within the next 14 days
- 3.Upon service, the Defendants at liberty to file and serve their defence and/or amended defence(s) together with pretrial bundles within 30 days
- 4.Any pleadings filed out of time to stand expunged
- 5.The Plaintiff to meet the costs of the application
- 6.Parties to fix the matter for hearing expeditiously
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 8 Rules 3, 5, 7 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bathawab Investment Limited v Abdulhafedh aka Zubedi & 4 others (Environment & Land Case 330 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 3597 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3597/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.