Njiri & another v Wangui & 2 others (Civil Application E018 of 2026) [2026] KECA 789 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed self-represented appellants to tidy up their appeal, confirming courts freely permit amendments unless they unfairly prejudice the other side.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their memorandum of appeal to conform with Rule 88 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 by removing repetitive grounds
- 2.Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if the amendment is allowed
Key legal issues
#Governing principles for leave to amend pleadings on appeal
Amendment is directed at proper ventilation of the real dispute and should be freely allowed unless mala fides or prejudice uncompensated by costs is shown.
The Court traced the object of amendments to achieving justice between the parties by determining the real issues, drawing on Cobbold vs Greenwich LBC, Ochieng & Others vs First National Bank of Chicago, Kanawal Sarjit Singh Dhim vs Keshavji Jivraj Shah and Eastern Bakery vs Castelino. A memorandum of appeal is amenable to amendment. The decisive test is whether the other side suffers prejudice not compensable in costs. Since the applicants sought only to remove repetitive grounds to conform with Rule 88, no prejudice arose.
Whether the proposed amendment would prejudice the respondents
No prejudice was demonstrated; the amendment merely removes repetitive grounds to conform with Rule 88.
The 3rd respondent contended the amendment would introduce new matters and fundamentally alter the appeal's character. The Court examined the proposed amendment, which sought only to eliminate repetitive grounds, and found nothing suggesting prejudice. On that basis the amendment jurisdiction was properly invoked and leave was granted with a 14-day timeline for compliance.
Legal principles established
#- An application to amend a pleading should be allowed unless it is made in bad faith or will cause prejudice to the other party that cannot be compensated by costs.
- The discretion to amend, however wide, is a judicial discretion that must be exercised on reason rather than whim or caprice.
- Amendments sought before hearing should be freely allowed if they can be made without injustice to the other side, injustice being absent where the other side can be compensated by costs.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the applicants to file and serve their amended memorandum of appeal within 14 days from the date of the ruling
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 46(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (leave to amend a document on appeal)
Relief refused
#Costs of the application sought to abide the outcome of the appeal
The Court instead made no orders as to costs
Costs
No orders as to costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Accordingly, the applicants are hereby granted leave to file and serve their amended memorandum of appeal with 14 days from the date of this ruling. I make no orders as to costs.
A litigant must be given leave to amend his or her pleading unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the pleading cannot be cured by the amendment.
Amendments in general ought to be allowed so that the real dispute between the parties can be adjudicated upon provided that any prejudice to the other party or parties caused by the amendment can be compensated for in costs
The power donated by Rule 46 (1) to amend any document is a discretionary power, which must be exercised judiciously on the basis of reason rather than arbitrarily and subject to the interests and dictates of justice.
Issues in the judgment
#Application dated 26th January 2026 and ruling delivered 23rd April 2026 appear to postdate the normal timeline; the dates are recorded as printed in the judgment and are reproduced without verification.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Family Bank Ltd v Step Up Holding Ltd (Civil Appeal E004 of 2022) [2026] KECA 1235 (KLR)[2026] KECA 1235 (KLR)3 Jul 2026applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njiri & another v Wangui & 2 others (Civil Application E018 of 2026) [2026] KECA 789 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Nakuru Civil Appeal No. E058 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/789/eng@2026-04-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.