Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||Civil Suit 29 of 2009|
|Parties:||RACHEL MWIHAKI GATABAKI V NJEHU GATABAKI|
|Date Delivered:||03 Oct 2012|
|Court:||High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)|
|Citation:||RACHEL MWIHAKI GATABAKI VERSUS NJEHU GATABAKIeKLR|
|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|
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
Civil Suit 29 of 2009
RACHEL MWIHAKI GATABAKI …………....………..….. APPLICANT
NJEHU GATABAKI…………………………………….. RESPONDENT
SURAYA PROPERTY GROUP LTD….….....…....INTERESTED PARTY
R U L I N G
When this matter came for hearing on 1st October, 2012 Ms. Thongori for the Applicant sought leave of the court to correct some typographical errors in respect of property LR No. 5890/3 for that number to read LR No. 5980/3. Subsequently, the said number was altered to LR No. 28223/2. Mr. Muriuki for the Respondent opposed the application on the grounds, inter alia, that it was not a typing error as alleged by Ms. Thongori and that these numbers described different plots in the names of different persons. In reply, Ms. Thongori reiterated that they were typing errors as she was the one who typed the pleadings.
After considering the application for the amendments and the arguments of counsel, I take the view that if the numbers are wrongly typed, and the applicant proceeds with the wrong numbers, she will not get justice. The constitution is clear that in exercising judicial authority, the courts and tribunals are to be guided by, among others, the principle that justice should be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities. In order to access justice, it is fair and proper for the Applicant to bring before the court what she considers to be the true facts of the matter. If she does not do so, then her application will not truly embody her case as she perceives it. Needless to say, she will be driven away from the judgment seat.
On account of the foregoing, I am satisfied that the application for amendment is meritorious and it is accordingly granted as prayed. In the same breath, the Respondent will be at liberty to file a replying affidavit within 14 days of service of the amended Originating Summons.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 3rd day of October, 2012