Karino Ole Koriata v Stephen Kaitet Koriata & 2 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Narok
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Mohammed Kullow
Judgment Date
October 02, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Karino Ole Koriata v Stephen Kaitet Koriata & 2 others [2020] eKLR. Understand the key rulings and implications of this important legal decision.

Case brief: Karino Ole Koriata v Stephen Kaitet Koriata & 2 others [2020] eKLR
1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Karino Ole Koriata v. Stephen Kaitet Koriata & Others
- Case Number: ELC Cause No. 80 of 2017 (formerly Nakuru ELC Cause No. 258 of 2014)
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Narok
- Date Delivered: October 2, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Mohammed Kullow
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's amended plaint dated September 30, 2019, violated the provisions of Order 8 Rule 7(2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and consequently, whether it should be struck out.

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiff, Karino Ole Koriata, initiated a civil suit against the first defendant, Stephen Kaitet Koriata, the second defendant, the District Land Registrar Narok, and the third defendant, the Attorney General. The case arose from a land dispute, which is a highly emotive issue in Kenya. The first defendant filed a Notice of Motion on January 28, 2020, seeking to strike out the plaintiff's amended plaint on the grounds that it did not comply with the mandatory requirements for amendments as outlined in the Civil Procedure Rules. Specifically, the first defendant argued that the amendments were not clearly marked as required, making it difficult to ascertain what had been amended.

4. Procedural History:
The application to strike out the amended plaint was based on the assertion that the plaintiff failed to adhere to the procedural requirements for making amendments. The first defendant supported his application with an affidavit, while the plaintiff opposed the motion through a replying affidavit, asserting that the amendments were made appropriately. When the application was scheduled for hearing, the court directed that it be resolved through written submissions. However, the first defendant failed to submit any written argument, while the plaintiff did.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The relevant statutes considered by the court included Order 8 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which mandates that all amendments must be clearly indicated by striking out deleted words in red ink and underlining added words in red ink.
- Case Law: The court referenced the case of Salama Beach Hotel Ltd & 2 Others v. Kenyairi and Associates Advocates (2016) eKLR, where it was emphasized that parties should not create obstacles for their adversaries to be heard in court and that disputes should be resolved on their merits rather than on procedural technicalities.
- Application: The court noted that while the plaintiff's amended plaint did not comply with the specific requirements of Order 8 Rule 7, the failure to use red ink was deemed a mere oversight. The court emphasized the importance of administering justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities, as enshrined in Article 159(d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. The court concluded that striking out the plaint would unjustly prevent the plaintiff from having his day in court, potentially causing a miscarriage of justice.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled against the motion to strike out the plaintiff's amended plaint, allowing the plaintiff to make the necessary corrections within 14 days. The ruling underscored the principle of substantive justice over procedural technicalities and highlighted the court's commitment to ensuring access to justice.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions in this case as the ruling was unanimous and delivered by Judge Mohammed Kullow.

8. Summary:
The ruling in Karino Ole Koriata v. Stephen Kaitet Koriata emphasizes the court's commitment to substantive justice and the importance of allowing parties to present their cases without being hindered by technical procedural issues. The decision serves as a reminder of the balance between adhering to procedural rules and ensuring that justice is served, particularly in emotionally charged disputes such as land cases in Kenya. The court's directive for the plaintiff to correct the amendments within a specified timeframe reflects a pragmatic approach to resolving legal disputes.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Karino-Ole-Koriata-v-Stephen-Kaitet-Koriata--2--others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1375_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries