Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Case No. 1468 of 2013 (consolidated with ELC Case No. 595 of 2023)· [2025] KEELC 7989 (KLR)

Shah & another v Govani; Jaff (Third party) (Environment and Land Case 1468 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 7989 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
19 November 2025
MCMbogo C.G.
3,155 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused late amendments to a 2013 land case, warning courts will reject changes that add new claims or parties after years of delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs/applicants filed a notice of motion dated 30th May 2025 under Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 8 Rules 3 and 5 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking leave to amend their plaint following the consolidation of this suit with ELC Case No. 595 of 2023. The proposed amendments sought to join Mukeshi L. Khetani and Vinod L. Khetani as interested parties, introduce LR No. 4242/44 and LR No. 4242/45, and plead a new cause of action in encroachment with additional prayers. The defendant/respondent opposed, arguing the amendments radically altered the case, amounted to a collateral attack and abuse of process, and were made after over ten years of delay. The third party similarly opposed, contending that joinder of the proposed interested parties was misconceived as they were not registered owners of the relevant parcel. The court framed the sole issue as whether leave to amend ought to be granted. Applying Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 8 Rules 3 and 5, and the principles in Gladys Nduku Nthuki v Letshego Kenya Limited, the court held that although amendments may be allowed at any stage, none should cause injustice. The court found the amendments untenable: they joined a party without leave, introduced a new cause of action, new prayers and a new property. The plaintiffs' explanation premised on consolidation was found lame and an afterthought, the suit having been consolidated in 2015. The application was dismissed with costs assessed at Kshs. 50,000/- each to the defendant/respondent and the third party.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave to amend the plaint should be granted

Holding

The application was dismissed; the proposed amendments were held untenable as they joined a party without leave, introduced a new cause of action (encroachment) and a new property, altering the suit

Reasoning

The court applied Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 8 Rules 3 and 5, which confer discretion to allow amendments at any stage, provided no injustice is caused. The draft amended plaint sought to join an interested party without leave, add an encroachment claim not previously pleaded, and introduce a new property. The court held this would cause injustice and inhibit efficient disposal, and was made in bad faith.

p. 6
02

Whether the application was filed without delay

Holding

The explanation that the consolidation occasioned delay was found to be an afterthought, since the suits were consolidated in 2015 giving the plaintiffs sufficient time to amend

Reasoning

The plaintiffs argued the trial had only just commenced de novo after consolidation with ELC 595 of 2023. The court noted Onguto J's 2015 directions consolidating the suits, meaning the plaintiffs had ample time to seek amendments. Allowing late amendment would cause injustice and inhibit efficient disposal, and the application was found to be made in bad faith.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Amendment of pleadings may be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, but the court must ensure the other party does not suffer injustice
  • An amendment may be disallowed if it causes prejudice leading to injustice; if no injustice results, the court may allow the amendment with directions

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 30th May 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs to the defendant/respondent and the third party assessed at Kshs. 50,000/- each
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 8 Rules 3 and 5, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya

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.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Shah & another v Govani; Jaff (Third party) (Environment and Land Case 1468 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 7989 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case No. 1468 of 2013 (consolidated with ELC Case No. 595 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7989/eng@2025-11-19

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