Criticos & another v AIC Makutano & 66 others (Land Case 3 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 5966 (KLR)

JAMES FRED NEWTON WANDERA ........................................ 16TH DEFENDANT MBUYUNI WOMEN GROUP ORGANISATION ..................... 17TH DEFENDANT SABASTIAN LETIMIANE MWACHILA .................................... 18TH DEFENDANT PETRO CHIKIRA EDWARD ...................................................... 19TH DEFENDANT EDWARD RASHID MAKORE .................................................... 20TH DEFENDANT JACKSON MATANO FUNDI ....................................................... 21ST DEFENDANT NZIOKI MUTUA MBULU ........................................................... 22ND DEFENDANT BAHATI KINYOKA ...................................................................... 23RD DEFENDANT PROSTUS A SEBORU ................................................................... 24TH DEFENDANT MUSA SALERI FUNDI ................................................................. 25TH DEFENDANT JOSPEH SALERI FUNDI .............................................................. 26TH DEFENDANT DENNIS MWANGEKA MOMBO ................................................ 27TH DEFENDANT JANET CHILUMO MBWANA ..................................................... 28TH DEFENDANT PASCAL SIO MTULA ................................................................... 29TH DEFENDANT MARTIN MRAMBA ..................................................................... 30TH DEFENDANT NUHU LAYONI ABDULRAHAMAN ......................................... 31ST DEFENDANT MWANATUMU HAMISI .............................................................. 32ND DEFENDANT JARED ONYANSI NYAUNDI ...................................................... 33RD DEFENDANT CLEMENT LENJO ......................................................................... 34TH DEFENDANT ANNABEL RADUMA OJOO ....................................................... 35TH DEFENDANT LIVERSON MARORO .................................................................. 36TH DEFENDANT LINNET NGELE IDAWO ............................................................. 37TH DEFENDANT MWAKULOMBA P SHETE .......................................................... 38TH DEFENDANT JOSEPH M MWACHILA ............................................................... 39TH DEFENDANT GODWIN MWITI MUGIRA ........................................................ 40TH DEFENDANT ELINA JOHANA MWACHIA ....................................................... 41ST DEFENDANT CHALLA CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ........... 42ND DEFENDANT DENIS N MUNYI .......................................................................... 43RD DEFENDANT MICHAEL WISO ............................................................................ 44TH DEFENDANT ALFRED ISAACK MNYANYA .................................................... 45TH DEFENDANT CORNEL KINYILI KONGO ........................................................ 46TH DEFENDANT CAROLINE EDINA ATIENO ADHOLA .................................... 47TH DEFENDANT https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5966/eng@2025-08-29 2

page 2 of 5

JOHN J SWAI ................................................................................. 48TH DEFENDANT JOHN MUTUA MWANGI ............................................................ 49TH DEFENDANT MARK NGWATI MBITHI ............................................................ 50TH DEFENDANT CHEMOMOBO TECLAH MUKHEBET ...................................... 51ST DEFENDANT ERASTUS A MAROO ................................................................... 52ND DEFENDANT PAUL MWASARU MWAZUMBO ................................................ 53RD DEFENDANT JESMILY WAKESHO MWAZUMBO ........................................... 54TH DEFENDANT NIORAM HOLDINGS LIMITED ................................................ 55TH DEFENDANT JAPHET MNDAMBO BASHARI ................................................. 56TH DEFENDANT TOLOWA RAMAITA .................................................................... 57TH DEFENDANT RENNISON A MWADIME ........................................................... 58TH DEFENDANT RUTH KAMEME ........................................................................... 59TH DEFENDANT JACKSON KIMIRI MSUYA ......................................................... 60TH DEFENDANT MATENGE K NGAU ...................................................................... 61ST DEFENDANT MUTUA MBITHI MBURU .......................................................... 62ND DEFENDANT EPHRAIM NGORIO SIMEON .................................................... 63RD DEFENDANT BENSON KISOMBE MSULA MBEDE ........................................ 64TH DEFENDANT LAND SETTLEMENT FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE SETTLEMENT FUND TRUSTEES) ............................. 65TH DEFENDANT THE CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR ............................................... 66TH DEFENDANT THE DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR, TAITA TAVETA .......... 67TH DEFENDANT RULING 1. This Ruling is in respect to the Plaintifis/Applicants application dated 24th July 2025 which seeks to further amend the Plaint dated 7th February 2023. The application was supported by the Afidavit sworn by Basil Criticos on the 24th July 2025. 2. Pursuant to the directions issued by the court, the said application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Plaintifis’ filed written submissions dated 18th August 2025, no written submissions nor any response had been filed by any of the Defendants/Respondents as at the time this court retired to write its Ruling. In essence the application stands unopposed. 3. Even though the application is not opposed, In the Supreme Court of Kenya case of Gideon Sitelu Konchellah v Julius Lekakeny Ole Sunkuli & 2 Others [2018] eKLR, the court stated that; “ As a court of Law, we have a duty in principle to look at what the application is about and what it seeks. It is not automatic that for any unopposed application, the court will as a https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5966/eng@2025-08-29 3

page 3 of 5

matter of cause grant the sought orders. It behooves the court to be satisfied that prima facie, with no objection, the application is meritorious and the prayers may be granted”. 4. Thus this court has a duty to look into the merits of the current application, even if the same is unopposed. 5. This Court has considered the application and written submissions file by the Plaintifis together with the authorities cited in support of the application, the only issue to consider is whether the application for further amendment of the plaint is merited to warrant the grant of the orders sought. 6. Order 8 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules stipulates that; ‘‘...the court may at any stage of the proceedings on such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be just and in such manner as it may direct, allow any party to amend his pleadings.’’ And Rule 5(10) in particular provides that:‘‘For the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, or of correcting any defect or error in any proceedings, the court may either of its own motion or on the application of any party order any document to be amended in such manner as it directs and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as are just.’’ 7. The rationale for amendment of pleadings need not be belaboured; it is so that the Court can then efiectively and efiectually determine the issues in controversy between the parties to the suit and therefore should be freely allowed. 8. Accordingly, if the Court is satisfied that good cause has been shown for it, it ought to allow an amendment, notwithstanding previous amendments. In this case, the Plaintifis averred in the Supporting Afidavit that the 11th, 65th to 67th Defendants whom principally the amendment is sought are directed against have yet to testify and hence no prejudice will be sufiered on either party. That, to my mind, is a justifiable cause. The Defendants will still have a chance to amend their defence if so desired. 9. The Court of Appeal in considering a similar issue for amendment of pleadings stated in the case of Philip Chemwolo vs Augustine Kubende [1985]eKLR 492 that the duty of the Court is to do justice to the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes or omissions. 10. This court is of the view that the proposed amendments will ensure that the dispute between the parties is resolved expeditiously and with finality. This is so having regard to the fact that the pleadings can as a rule be allowed at any stage of the litigation so long as no prejudice will be sufiered. 11. Consequently, considering that the suit has a further hearing date scheduled for 23rd October 2025, the Plaintifis application dated 24th July 2025 is hereby allowed in the following terms: a. The Plaintifis are hereby granted leave to file and serve the “Further Further Amended Plaint” within 5 days from today. b. Upon service, the Defendants shall have 10 days to file and serve their amended defence. c. Each party to bear own costs of the application. Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED BY EMAIL THIS 29TH AUGUST 2025. E.K. WABWOTO https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5966/eng@2025-08-29 4

page 4 of 5

JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5966/eng@2025-08-29 5

page 5 of 5