Rahimkhan & another v County Government of Kwale & 5 others (Environment & Land Case 4 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 500 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed Kwale County to amend its land counterclaim but postponed consolidating related land suits until all affected parties are joined.
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 application dated 6th May 2024 seeking leave to amend the counterclaim and consolidation is merited
- 2.Whether the proposed amendments offend the provisions of Order 7 Rule 8, 11 and 12, Order 8 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Article 50(1) of the Constitution
- 3.Whether the Plaintiffs in Kwale ELC Case No. E004 of 2022 would be prejudiced if leave is granted
- 4.Whether the suit should be consolidated with Kwale ELC Court Case No. 141 of 2021
Key legal issues
#Whether leave to further amend the counterclaim should be granted
Leave granted, with liberty to amend to include any other affected parties; the amendments infused life into the counterclaim and no prejudice was shown
The court reviewed the draft Further Amended Defence and Counterclaim against the pleading of 16/06/2017 and found the proposed amendments clearly brought out the facts surrounding the lease renewal, infusing life into the counterclaim. Following Central Kenya Ltd v Trust Bank Ltd, amendments are freely allowed unless prejudice incapable of compensation in costs. The objectors' concerns were addressable by further amendment under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Order 8 Rule 4.
Whether the objecting Plaintiffs in ELC No. E004/E04 of 2022 have standing to oppose despite not being parties to the suit
Their concerns were real and well founded, but remediable by further amendment rather than refusal of leave
Although not parties to the suit in which the amendments are proposed, these Plaintiffs allege they facilitated the lease renewal and are condemned by the counterclaim as irregularly obtaining it. The court held their apprehensions were well founded and real, and they are entitled to defend their position, but the remedy lies in amending the draft counterclaim to name them, not in defeating the application.
Whether the proposed amendments offended Order 7 Rule 8, 11 and 12, Order 8 Rule 5 and Article 50(1)
No offence established; the proposed title and parties were clearly indicated and the pleading was a mere draft amenable to further amendment
The court compared the draft Further Amended Defence and Counterclaim with the earlier pleading and found the title and parties clearly marked, new paragraphs underlined, and abandoned paragraphs deleted. Nothing of concern emerged to sustain the objection. Further, the objection that no counterclaim existed was rejected because an Amended Defence and Counterclaim filed 19/06/2017 existed and was never contested.
Whether the two suits should be consolidated
The threshold for consolidation was met, but consolidation deferred to a case management conference where all related suits can be considered together
Applying the principles in Nyati Security Guards as set out in Joseph Okoyo, the court found the two suits relate to the same subject property, the County Government is a party to both, and consolidation would save judicial time. However, since other suits concerning LR 4659 are pending, the court directed that consolidation be considered wholesomely under Order 11 Rule 3(1)(h) at a further case management forum after the necessary amendments.
Legal principles established
#- Amendments to pleadings are to be freely allowed unless the opposite side would be prejudiced or suffer injustice which cannot be compensated in costs
- Consolidation may be ordered where there is a common question of law or fact, or where rights or relief claimed arise out of the same transaction, or where it is otherwise desirable
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant is granted leave to further amend the Counterclaim so as to take into account any other relevant parties that may ultimately be affected by the Orders sought in the Amended Counterclaim
- 2.The amendments shall be effected and served upon the affected parties within 14 days of the date of the ruling
- 3.The consolidation of the suits shall be further considered as part of the case management conference under the provisions of Order 11
- 4.Costs shall be in the cause
- 5.The suits shall be mentioned on 19/02/2025
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Order 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Article 159 of the Constitution (inherent discretion to render substantive justice)
Relief refused
#Immediate consolidation of this suit with Kwale ELC Court Case No. 141 of 2021 and hearing together
Other related suits touch on the same subject matter and appropriate amendments to accommodate affected parties should first be undertaken; consolidation to be considered wholesomely at a case management forum under Order 11
Costs
Costs shall be in the cause
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.
the policy of the law is that amendments to pleadings are to be freely allowed unless by allowing them the opposite side would be prejudiced or sufier injustice which cannot properly be compensated for in costs.
I think to find that there is no counterclaim to amend will be misleading.
Having understood the gravamen of the amendments I would agree that the same has brought out the issues in controversy which will enable the court to render justice from an informed point of view. Infact they have infused life into the counterclaim.
That the applicant is hereby granted leave to further amend the Counterclaim accordingly so as to take into account any other relevant parties that may ultimately be afiected by the Orders sought in the Amended Counterclaim.
That the consolidation of the suits shall further be considered as part of the case Management conference under the provisions of Order 11
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling alternately refers to the objecting Plaintiffs' suit as 'Kwale ELC Case No. E004 of 2022' and 'ELC No. E04 of 2024', creating uncertainty over the correct case number
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rahimkhan & another v County Government of Kwale & 5 others (Environment & Land Case 4 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 500 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Mombasa ELC Case No. 137 of 2017 (now ELCLC No. 4 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/500/eng@2025-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.