Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedEnvironmental and Land Originating Summons E001 of 2023

Abok (Suing as the Legal Representative of Joseph Ochieng Odote) v Nyakina alias Charles Ogeta Nyakina

Environment and Land Court
27 November 2023
GOGMA Ongondo
310 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay allowed an unopposed request to amend a land case, showing courts readily permit amendments when no one objects.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay (GMA Ongondo, J) on a Notice of Motion dated 12th October 2023 brought by the applicant, Monika Adoyo Abok, suing as the legal representative of Joseph Ochieng Odote, in an originating summons against Ogeta Nyakinda alias Charles Ogeta Nyakina. The applicant sought two substantive orders: leave to amend the originating summons as disclosed in a draft amended originating summons annexed to the application and marked 'MAA-6', and that the amended originating summons be deemed duly filed and served, plus costs. When the matter came up, counsel for the applicant, Ms S. Adoyo of L.K Obwanda Advocates, informed the court that there had been no response to the motion and asked that it be allowed as prayed. The court confirmed that no response had been filed. Considering the application together with the supporting affidavit, annexed documents and the grounds on its face, the judge found the unopposed application firm and meritorious and allowed it in terms of prayers 1 and 2, namely leave to amend and deeming of the amended summons as filed and served. Costs of the application were ordered to be in the cause. The ruling contains no citation of authorities or statutory provisions and disposes only of the interlocutory amendment application; the substantive originating summons remains pending.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the unopposed Notice of Motion dated 12th October 2023 seeking leave to amend the originating summons should be allowed

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave to amend the originating summons should be granted in an unopposed application

Holding

The court allowed the unopposed application, finding it firm and meritorious on the face of the application, supporting affidavit and annexures.

Reasoning

The application was unopposed, with no response filed. The court considered the notice of motion, the grounds on its face, the supporting affidavit and annexed documents, and concluded the application was firm and meritorious, granting leave to amend and deeming the amended summons filed and served.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.Leave granted to the applicant to amend the originating summons as disclosed in the draft annexed amended originating summons marked 'MAA-6'
    2. 2.The amended originating summons deemed to have been duly filed and served
    3. 3.Costs of the application to be in the cause

    The bench

    #

    One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

    GO
    majority

    Wrote the judgment

    Jurisdiction invoked
    Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the originating summons; procedural jurisdiction to allow amendment of pleadings

    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 application is hereby allowed in terms of orders 1 and 2 sought therein as stated in paragraph 1(a) and (b) hereinabove.
    p. 2disposition - leave to amend granted
    Taking into account the entire application based on the applicant's supporting affidavit together with the annexed documents alongside the grounds on it's face, the same is unopposed, firm and meritorious.
    p. 1unopposed application found meritorious
    Costs of the application be in the cause.
    p. 2costs order

    Issues in the judgment

    #
    minor

    Respondent's name appears as 'Nyakina' in the title but 'Ogeta Nyakinda' in the cause heading

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Abok (Suing as the Legal Representative of Joseph Ochieng Odote) v Nyakina alias Charles Ogeta Nyakina", Case Analysis (2023). Environmental and Land Originating Summons E001 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/21758/eng@2023-11-27

    Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.