Okeny Charles v Olum John and Others (Miscellaneous Application 9 of 2025)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
Held that the Court has discretion under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to allow amendment of a memorandum of appeal where the original ground is too generalised to constitute a determinable ground of appeal. The interests of justice favour allowing amendment to resolve substantive controversies over land ownership rather than striking out the appeal on a technicality, notwithstanding the advanced stage of proceedings.
Outcome
Leave granted to amend memorandum of appeal; applicant to file amended memorandum by 19 November 2025
Facts
The applicant had filed a civil appeal in July 2018 against a trial magistrate's judgment finding the respondents in adverse possession of twelve acres of land. The memorandum of appeal contained only one generalised ground challenging the trial magistrate's evaluation of evidence. By 2022 both parties had filed written submissions and the appeal was fixed for oral highlights in 2025. In February 2025, having retained new counsel, the applicant sought leave to amend the memorandum of appeal on grounds that the original ground was too general and violated legal requirements. The respondents opposed the application, arguing it was filed in bad faith to delay disposal of the appeal at an advanced stage.
Issues
- Whether sufficient cause is established for the Court to exercise its discretion to grant leave to the Applicant to amend the Memorandum of Appeal.
Orders
- Miscellaneous Application No. 09/2025 is granted.
- The Applicant shall file his amended Memorandum of Appeal on or before 19th November 2025.
- The Applicant shall bear the costs of this belatedly filed Application.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
Cases cited (6)
- Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] EA 461
- Mulowooza & Brothers v N. Shah and Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
- Uhuru Highway Ltd v Central Bank of Kenya [2003] 1 EA 314
- Mujungu Jennifer K. v Tumwine Anne Mary & The Electoral Commission (EPA (CA) No. 77 of 2021)
- National Insurance Corporation v Pelican Air Services (CACA No. 15 of 2003)
- Musisi Gabriel v Edco Ltd & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 386 of 2013)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.