Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the excerpt ( Kisii Environment and Land Court Civil Suit)· [2026] KEELC 1087 (KLR)

Njenga (Suing by her Lawful attorney Hezron Njenga) & another v Kinyanjui & 3 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 2313 of 1992) [2026] KEELC 1087 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
26 February 2026
AOA. Omollo
2,042 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 2nd Plaintiff/Applicant, through a Notice of Motion dated 27th October 2025, sought leave to amend the further amended plaint in a long-running trespass suit over L.R. No. Dagoretti/Thogoto/968 and 969, in which the Plaintiffs sought eviction, permanent injunction and general damages. The proposed amendment sought to introduce declaratory reliefs of ownership, orders of possession, mesne profits at Kshs. 50,000 per month per Plaintiff and compensatory damages with interest. The Defendants opposed, arguing the application was an afterthought in a dispute spanning approximately thirty-two years, that the parties had closed their cases and the matter was ripe for judgment, and that the amendment sought substantive new heads of damages requiring fresh evidence. The Applicant contended the amendment was bona fide, clarificatory, and necessary for the just determination of all issues, relying on authorities that amendments should be freely allowed. The court framed one issue: whether the plea for amendment was merited. Applying Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 8 Rule 3, and the principles in Central Kenya Limited v Trust Bank Limited and Coffee Board of Kenya v Thika Coffee Mills Limited, the court held that the discretion to amend is wide but must be exercised judicially and cautiously at advanced stages. It found no credible justification for the late amendment, held the amendments were substantive rather than cosmetic, would require a fresh evidentiary foundation, reopen the record and cause prejudice not compensable by costs. The Motion was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave to amend pleadings should be granted after closure of the evidential phase and when the matter is ripe for judgment

Holding

The application was dismissed. Although the discretion to amend is wide and may be exercised at any stage, it must be exercised judicially; where the hearing is closed, no credible explanation for the delay is offered, and the amendments are substantive rather than cosmetic, requiring fresh evidence and causing prejudice not compensable by costs, leave is properly refused.

Reasoning

The court applied Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, and the principles in Central Kenya Limited v Trust Bank Limited and Coffee Board of Kenya v Thika Coffee Mills Limited. It found the proposed amendment introduced new heads of relief (mesne profits and compensatory damages) necessitating reopening of a concluded trial in a 32-year-old dispute, occasioning prejudice not compensable by costs.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The court's discretion to allow amendment of pleadings at any stage is wide but must be exercised judicially and on defined principles; where the matter is at an advanced stage and no credible justification for the amendment is offered, the amendment may be refused as an afterthought
  • Amendments introducing substantive new reliefs requiring fresh evidentiary foundation may be refused where they would reopen the record and cause prejudice not compensable by costs

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 27th October 2025 seeking leave to amend the further amended plaint is dismissed with costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21Section 3A
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21Section 100
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 1 Rules 3, 10(2), (4)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 8 Rules 3(1),(2),(5), 5(1), 8
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 50 Rule 6

Cases cited (4)

  • Elijah Kipngeno Arap Bii v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
    [2013] eKLR
  • St. Patrick's Hill School Limited v Bank of Africa Kenya Limited
    High Court Civil Case No. 7 of 2017 (Kajiado)
  • Central Kenya Limited v Trust Bank Limited
    (2000) eKLR
  • Coffee Board of Kenya v Thika Coffee Mills Limited & 2 Others
    [2014] KECA 409 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 8 Rules 3, 5 and 8; Order 1 Rules 3, 10(2), (4); Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Njenga (Suing by her Lawful attorney Hezron Njenga) & another v Kinyanjui & 3 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 2313 of 1992) [2026] KEELC 1087 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the excerpt ( Kisii Environment and Land Court Civil Suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1087/eng@2026-02-26

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