1.The Applicant moved the court through a Notice of Motion dated 27th February, 2023 seeking leave to amend the Originating Summons and add Robert Kipkemei Maiyo and Josephat Kiprop Maiyo as co-defendants in the suit.
2.The application is premised on the grounds set out on the face of the Notice of Motion and the Applicant’s supporting affidavit sworn on the 27th February, 2023. The main reason why the Appliant seeks to amend the Plaint is that the mother title of the subject matter has since been sub-divided into ten parcels of land which are registered in the names of the Respondents and other parties who need to be joined to the suit. The particulars of the said changes have been elaborated in the supporting affidavit.
3.In opposing the application the Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 14th March, 2023 in which she deposes that the application is bad in law and unmeritorious as it is intended to circumvent the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 24th August, 2022.
4.The court directed that the application be disposed of by way of written submissions and both parties complied.
5.The main issue for determination is whether the Applicant ought to be granted leave to amend the Originationg Summons.
Analysis and Deermination
7.The principles that should guide the court in dealing with applications for amendments are elaborated in Mulla, the Code of Civil Procedure, 18th Ed, Vol 2 pages 1751-1752 which has been cited in various authorities including the case of Coffee Board of Kenya v Thika Coffee Mills Limited & 2 Others (2014) eKLR where it is stated as follows:
8.In the case of Crown Berger (K) Limited v Patsa Hardware (K) Ltd  eKLR the court cited the case of Central Kenya Limited v Trust Bank Limited 2000 E.A 365 where the Court of Appeal set out the principles that guide the court in considering an application for amendment of pleadings as follows:
9.Similarly in the case of Institute for Social Accountability & Another v Parliament of Kenya & 3 others  eKLR, where the court observed that:
11.What can be gleaned from the above case is that the court has a wide discretion to amend pleadings at any stage of the proceedings so to bring out the real issues in controversy between the parties and on such terms as to costs as may be just.
12.In the present case, the Applicant has explained that land parcel number Uasin Gishu/ Kimumu/107 on which the Applicant has based his claim no longer exists as it has been sub-divided into 10 parcels ranging L.R No. Uasin Gishu/ Kimumu/1077-9087.
13.The Respondent contends that by seeking to amend the O.S, the Applicant is trying to circumvent the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 24.8.2022. He further contends that he Applicant has not identified the number of the parcel that he is occupying and that the application is not made in good faith.
14.I am of the considered view that as long as the amendments sought are within the limits set out in the above mentioned authorities, they ought to be allowed. I concur with the decision of Munyao J in Kiplangat Arap Korir v Richard Kipyegon Korir & 3 Others ( 2016) eKLR where faced with a similar application the learned judge held as follows:
15.The amendments are necessary to reflect the new title numbers and since two of them are registered in the names of other parties, it is necessary to bring in the new parties so as to resolve all the issues in controversy.
16.In view of the foregoing, I find merit in the application and I grant it with costs to the Respondent. The new parties shall be served with the pleadings within 14 days.