Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||Civil Suit 233 of 2011|
|Parties:||MUMWANJESYI DEVELOPMENT LIMITED v DAVID MUTUA MULII|
|Date Delivered:||19 Dec 2011|
|Court:||High Court at Mombasa|
|Judge(s):||William Kipsiro Tuiyot|
|Citation:||MUMWANJESYI DEVELOPMENT LIMITED v DAVID MUTUA MULII  eKLR|
|Disclaimer:||The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA
CIVIL SUIT NO. 233 OF 2011
V E S U S
Some brief background is necessary. By a plaint dated 9th August 2011 MUMWANJESYI INVESTMENTS LIMITED brought this action against the Defendant. Simultaneously, the plaintiff filed a Motion for temporary injunction and on the same day obtained restraining orders exparte pending the hearing of the Motion interpartes. On 4th October 2011, and before the close of pleadings, the plaintiff filed an Amended Plaint deleting from its name the word ‘Investments’ and replacing it with the word ‘Development’ so that the plaintiff would read MUMWANJESYI DEVELOPMENT LIMITED. This may have had the effect of substituting parties but Order 8 Rule 3(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 allows it. It became necessary that a similar correction be made in the Notice of Motion and hence this application.
“I entirely agree that ‘MUMWANYESYI DEVELOPMENT LIMITED’ and ‘MUMWNYESYI DEVELOPMENT LTD’ are different corporate entitles.”
I have to find that the defect on the verifying affidavit infects the Amended plaint. This is, no doubt, a curable defect but for now MUMWANJESYI DEVELOPMENT LTD is not properly before court. The result is that this court will not allow an application by a party not properly before it.