Kenya Church of Christ (Suing through Bishop Peter Macharia Wachira) v Keingati & 6 others [2022] KEELC 3025 (KLR)

Kenya Church of Christ (Suing through Bishop Peter Macharia Wachira) v Keingati & 6 others (Environment & Land Case 266 of 2017) [2022] KEELC 3025 (KLR) (26 May 2022) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEELC 3025 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi

Environment & Land Case 266 of 2017

LN Mbugua, J

May 26, 2022

Between

Kenya Church of Christ

Applicant

Suing through Bishop Peter Macharia Wachira

and

Peter Karumbi Keingati alias Joseph Karumbi Keingati

1st Respondent

Andrew Watiki Gikore

2nd Respondent

Joseph Nduati Ngendo

3rd Respondent

Samwel Karanja Kamau

4th Respondent

Kiambu Dandora Company Limited

5th Respondent

Chief Lands Registrar, Ministry of Lands

6th Respondent

Karira Kinayanjui Thuo

7th Respondent

Ruling

1. On March 1, 2022, this court gave a raft of directions inter-alia, that a ruling shall be delivered in respect of the application dated October 27, 2021. Therein, the applicants who are 3rd & 7th Defendants are seeking leave to file and serve an amended defence with a counter-claim. They contend that they are true owners of the suit property and that they continue to suffer as Plaintiffs have illegally taken possession thereof.

2. The Plaintiffs have opposed the application via the replying affidavit of the 2nd Plaintiff averring that they stand to be prejudiced as pre-trial directions had been taken. That the application is an after though and an abuse of the court process. They contend that they are the true owners of the suit properties.

3. I have considered all the issues raised herein. I have also perused the draft amended defence and counter-claim where inter-alia there is a counter-claim to the effect that 3rd Defendant is the registered owner of the suit property.

4. The provisions of Order 8 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules stipulate that:“1) Subject to Order 1, rules 9 and 10, Order 24, rules 3, 4, 5 and 6 and the following provisions of this rule, 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.”

5. The court of Appeal of East Africa in the locus classius Case of Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1956] EA 461 held that amendments sought before the hearing should be freely allowed if they can be made without injustice to the other side.

6. This is a case which has not taken off, and as per the last directions given by the court, 1st Defendant is in the process of filing their pleadings, while Plaintiff was directed to serve their pleadings upon the firm of Odero Were Advocates. It follows that pre-trial directions have not been fully undertaken.

7. In that regard, I allow the application dated October 27, 2021 in the following terms:1. The 3rd and 7th Defendants are granted leave to file and serve their draft amended defence and counter-claim within 14 days, failure to which such leave shall lapse.2. The Plaintiff (and any other party) is at liberty to file their defence thereof within 14 days from date of service.3. The 3rd and 7th Defendants, shall bear costs of the application.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2022 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:-M/S Muema for the Plaintiff/Respondent in the RulingAwandu holding brief for Were for the 1st DefendantCourt Assitant: Eddel