Ngoma & 2 others (Suing as Chairman, Secretary & Treasurer of Vinya wa Ng’ele Self Help Group) v Mutw’iwa alias Kitheka Mutw’iwa Mung’ela (Environment and Land Case 21 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 8331 (KLR) (16 October 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 8331 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MAKUENI ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE 21 OF 2018 EO OBAGA, J OCTOBER 16, 2025 BETWEEN KINYILI NGOMA ................................................................................ 1ST PLAINTIFF MUIA MUTUNGWA ........................................................................... 2ND PLAINTIFF KALONDU MBAI ................................................................................ 3RD PLAINTIFF SUING AS CHAIRMAN, SECRETARY & TREASURER OF VINYA WA NG’ELE SELF HELP GROUP AND BONIFACE KITHEKA MUTW’IWA ALIAS KITHEKA MUTW’IWA MUNG’ELA .............................................................................................. DEFENDANT RULING 1. 2. This is a ruling in respect of a notice of motion dated 16th May, 2025 in which the Plaintifi seeks the following orders: 1. That this honourable court be pleased to grant leave to the Plaintifi to amend its plaint as shown in the draft amended plaint annexed hereto. 2. That the draft amended plaint be deemed as duly filed and served. 3. That the costs of this application be in the cause. The Applicant contends that when its oficials were filing this case, they were acting in person and did not know that particulars of fraud had to be pleaded. It is on this basis that the Applicant seeks to amend the plaint and include the particulars of fraud now that they have engaged the services of a lawyer. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8331/eng@2025-10-16 1
page 1 of 2
3. The Defendant/Respondent who appears in person responded to the Applicant’s application in form of submissions dated 22nd August, 2025. The Respondent did not answer to the application by the Applicant. He instead raised issues touching on the suit. 4. In a further afidavit sworn on 3rd September, 2025, the Applicant states that the Respondent has not answered the application before the court. He has instead responded to the annexed draft amended plaint. 5. I have considered the Applicant’s application and the response thereto by the Respondent. The application was argued orally. The only issue for determination is whether the Applicant has demonstrated that he is entitled to an order granting it leave to amend the plaint. 6. It is not in contention that the plaint was filed by the Applicant’s oficials in person. They had no expertise of a legal mind to advise them that where it is alleged that an act was done fraudulently, particulars of the alleged fraud have to be included in the plaint. 7. The Applicant is seeking to amend the plaint to include the particulars of fraud. This will make the plaint complete and will not prejudice the Respondent. It is trite law that amendments to pleadings ought to be given freely at any stage before the case is concluded. In the instant case, the case has not been heard. The amendments sought will not prejudice the Defendant in any way. I therefore find that the Applicant’s application has merits. I allow the same and direct that the amended plaint be filed within 7 days. The Respondent shall file an amended defence within 14 days of being served with the amended plaint. The costs of this application shall be in the cause. It is so ordered. ......................................... HON. E. O. OBAGA JUDGE RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025. In The Presence Of: Ms. Nyabisi for Plaintifi Defendant in person. Court assistant - Nelima https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8331/eng@2025-10-16 2
page 2 of 2