AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC No. 941 of 2016 (Consolidated with ELC No. 947 of 2016)· [2025] KEELC 7859 (KLR)
Equity Bank (Kenya) Limited & another v Kinjunje Gardens Limited & 8 others (Environment and Land Case 941 of 2016 & Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 947 of 2016 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 7859 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#The 1st Defendant in consolidated suits ELC No. 941 of 2016 and ELC No. 947 of 2016 filed a Notice of Motion dated 28th March 2025 seeking leave to amend its statement of defence. It argued that the Plaintiff's amended plaint of 26th May 2022 had substantially altered the claim from land-related matters to purely commercial ones, introducing a liquidated claim and deleting prayers for injunction and nullification of a charge, thereby raising questions about the ELC's jurisdiction which the existing defence did not address. The Plaintiffs opposed, contending the application was belated, intended to delay the hearing scheduled for 3rd April 2025, and sought to reopen the issue of jurisdiction already conclusively determined by Justice S. Okongo's ruling of 3rd March 2022, which held that the dominant cause of action concerned validity of titles to the suit property, within the ELC's exclusive jurisdiction. The court, applying Order 8 Rule 5(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and the principle that amendments should be freely allowed if made in good faith and without uncompensatable prejudice, held that although the application was filed nearly three years after the amendment and stalled a hearing date, delay alone was not a bar, the hearing had not commenced, and the defendant was entitled to respond to the new claim. Leave to amend was granted, with the amended defence to be filed within seven days, and costs of the application awarded to the Plaintiffs due to the undue delay in bringing it.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether leave to amend the 1st Defendant's statement of defence should be granted despite the delay and the prior ruling of 3rd March 2022 on jurisdiction
Holding
Leave to amend was granted because the plaintiff's amended plaint introduced a new set of claims, entitling the defendant to respond; delay alone was not a bar and no prejudice was shown.
Reasoning
The court noted the plaintiff amended its plaint on 26th May 2022, deleting all original prayers for permanent injunction and declaratory orders nullifying the charge, and instead seeking a liquidated sum and general damages for fraud or collusion. This introduced a new set of claims. Although the application came nearly three years later and stalled a hearing date, the hearing had not commenced, delay alone is not a bar, and the defendant was entitled to respond to the new claim. Denial of leave would leave the defendant unable to address the altered claim.
p. 4
Legal principles established
#- The court may at any stage of proceedings allow a party to amend its pleadings on such terms as may be just and necessary for determining the real question in controversy.
- Delay alone is not a bar to amendment, but the court must consider whether the delay prejudices the opposing party or disrupts the orderly progress of the suit.
- A party is entitled to respond to a new claim introduced by amendment of the plaint, notwithstanding a prior ruling on jurisdiction.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the 1st Defendant to amend its statement of defence in terms of prayer 1 of the Notice of Motion dated 28th March 2025
- 2.The amended defence to be filed within seven (7) days
- 3.Costs of the application to the Plaintiffs on account of the application having been brought after undue delay
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act; amendment governed by Order 8 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Equity Bank (Kenya) Limited & another v Kinjunje Gardens Limited & 8 others (Environment and Land Case 941 of 2016 & Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 947 of 2016 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 7859 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC No. 941 of 2016 (Consolidated with ELC No. 947 of 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7859/eng@2025-11-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.