1.This ruling is in respect to an application dated November 11, 2022 accompanied by a Supporting Affidavit sworn by Milcah Muendo. The application seeks the following orders:
2.The application was supported on the grounds on its face. The suit came up for hearing on March 16, 2022 where an application for a site visit was made and subsequently allowed. On November 9, 2022, the site visit was conducted and the suit was set for further hearing on November 10, 2022.
3.In their submissions dated November 11, 2022, the 3rd and 4th Defendants submitted that the application was not frivolous since the amendments were in line with the cause of action in respect to the suit property. Relying on the cases of Permanent Secretary Ministry of Roads & another v Fleur Investments Limited  eKLR and Republic vs District Land Registrar, Uasin-Gishu & Anor (2014) eKLR, it was submitted that it would be in the interest of justice to allow the amendments since it would not introduce a new cause of action. Moreover, it was emphasized that amendment of pleadings would not prejudice the Plaintiff as they would be given the opportunity to respond accordingly.
4.The application was strongly opposed by the Plaintiff. In the Plaintiff’s submissions dated November 22, 2022, it was argued that the Applicants are seeking to introduce a new cause of action which would be time-barred since the transaction in question occurred about 30 years ago. Relying on the case of Central Kenya Limited v Trust Bank Limited (2000)2 EA 365 and Garley Enterprises Ltd v Agricultural Finance Limited & Another  eKLR it was submitted that the Applicants have failed to demonstrate why there had been a substantial delay in making the application.
5.Having considered the rival submissions in respect to the application, court proceedings and supporting documents filed herein, it is evident that the issue for determination before this Court is whether the 3rd and 4th Defendants/Applicants should be granted leave to amend their pleadings.
6.Order 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides for amendment of pleadings with leave of court as follows: -
7.Further, Order 8, rule 5 gives the Court the general power to amend.
8.In Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Ed (re-issue), Vol 36(1) at paragraph 76, state the following about amendments of pleadings: -
11.It is of paramount importance that this Court exercises its discretionary powers to ensure parties are not prejudiced in their pursuit for justice. My perusal of the court proceedings confirms that over the past 3 years, the Court has extended itself in allowing the Parties to file additional documents and amendments of their pleadings on several instances. For instance, on April 14, 2021, the Defendants sought for more time to be allowed to file an amended defence and additional documents, which request was granted. Additionally, on October 21, 2021, the Defendants were collectively granted 21 days to file additional documents.
12.Furthermore, I must pronounce myself on whether the application has been brought in a timeous manner and in good faith. This application was brought after the site visit had been undertaken and the Plaintiff’s witnesses had testified. In my view, not only would the proposed amendment be prejudicial to the Plaintiff but also seeks to increase the length of the judicial process for the determination of the suit herein.
13.With regard to the question of good faith, parties have participated in pre-trial conference on three separate occasions, where the Defendants were present and confirmed they were ready to proceed before the hearing finally commenced. Indeed, this application has been brought quite late in the day and the potential inconveniences caused cannot be cured by costs.
14.In the foregoing, the Court finds that the Application dated November 11, 2022 is unmerited and the same is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
15.It is so ordered.