Lihanda & another v Ayiga & 7 others (Environment and Land Case E010 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 2676 (KLR)

2. Reverend Ruth Werunga swore the afidavit in support of the application. She deponed that on 9/7/2025, the Plaintifi filed an amended plaint that was difierent from the in which they substituted a party. She emphasized that court timelines must be complied with for the expeditious disposal of disputes and added that the Defendants would sufier prejudice because a new party had been brought into the suit without the leave of the court. 3. Karani O. Aggrey swore the replying afidavit in which he conceded that on 19/6/2025, the court directed the Plaintifi to file its amended plaint within 7 days. He deponed that the Plaintifi filed its amended plaint barely 20 days from the date of the ruling while explaining that the delay in filing the amended plaint was occasioned by challenges in getting hold of Nebert Misigo Mudaki. Further, he clarified that Rev. Kenneth Mbalanya Adiara was the current General Superintendent of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God, Kenya having taken over from Rev. Patrick Musungu Likhanda. He maintained that the amendments did not afiect the cause of action and will not cause any prejudice to the 4th Defendant. Further, that the orders sought by the 4th Defendant were draconian and would result in an injustice. 4. The application was canvassed through written submissions. The 4th Defendant submitted that Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules gave the court power to add or substitute a party and that substituting a party required leave of the court. She urged that upon the lapse of the 7 days within which the Plaintifi was to amend its plaint, it was incumbent upon the Plaintifi to move the court for extension of time, which it failed to do. The 4th Defendant added that a document filed outside the time allowed for filing it was a nullity. 5. The Plaintifi submitted that Nebert Misigo Mudaki resided in Vihiga and that the delay arose when the documents were sent to him for execution. The Plaintifi submitted that the electronic court filing system was experiencing a system downtime on 11/7/2025, which was beyond the control of the Plaintifi. The Plaintifi maintained that the 4th Defendant had not demonstrated the prejudice she stood to sufier if the amendments were allowed and deemed to be properly on record. 6. The Plaintifi submitted that it was granted leave to amend the plaint and that the essence of amendment was to bring out the issues in controversy, which include relevant parties not sued at the time the suit was filed. It added that the substitution and introduction of Rev. Kenneth Mbalanya Adiara was done in good faith while arguing that he was not introduced as a new party. The Plaintifi cited Article 159 of the Constitution, which requires that matters be determined without undue regard to technicalities. 7. The issue for determination is whether the court should strike out the amended plaint as sought by the 4th Defendant. A perusal of the ruling of 19/6/2025 shows that the Plaintifi was granted leave to amend and serve the plaint in terms of the draft annexed to the supporting afidavit sworn by Rev. Kenneth M. Adiara within 7 days of the date of that ruling. It is not in contention that the amended plaint was filed outside the timelines given by the court and that the introduction of Rev. Kenneth Mbalanya Adiara as the 1st Plaintifi was not contemplated in the amendments allowed by the court. 8. It was necessary for the Plaintifi to seek the court’s leave to substitute Rev. Kenneth Mbalanya Adiara as a party in the suit. The court allows the application dated 22/7/2025. DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT BUNGOMA THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2026. K. BOR JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2676/eng@2026-04-28 2

page 2 of 3

In the presence of: Mr. Omundi Bw’Onchiri for the 4th Defendant Court Assistants- Bett/Metrine No appearance for the other parties https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2676/eng@2026-04-28 3

page 3 of 3