Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission v Nesco Services Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E211 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6927 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed a landowner to amend her claim to add key details, reaffirming that courts freely permit honest amendments before hearing.
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 for leave to amend the plaint is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether leave to amend the plaint should be granted
The application was allowed; the amendment to specify the acreage of the suit land, the public officer who issued the letter of allotment, and the pending suits causes no prejudice to the respondents, who were granted reciprocal leave to amend within 15 days.
The court applied section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 8 Rule 5, together with Halsbury's Laws of England and the Eastern Bakery and Central Kenya Ltd authorities, that amendments should be freely allowed at any stage provided no prejudice or injustice incapable of compensation in costs results. On reviewing the draft amended plaint, the judge found no prejudice to the respondents and held the amendment just to facilitate determination of the real questions in dispute. The court also exercised restraint on the plaint's validity, which was pending before the Court of Appeal in COA 889 of 2024.
Whether the court should determine the validity of the plaint while an appeal thereon is pending before the Court of Appeal
The court declined to embark on the validity of the plaint, exercising restraint to avoid embarrassing the appellate court, while noting no stay of proceedings was in place.
The judge observed that Mr. Justice Mwangi had already extensively ruled on the validity of the plaint on 24/9/24 and that the 1st and 2nd respondents had appealed to the Court of Appeal in COA 889 of 2024. Although no stay order existed, the court held it must exercise caution and adhere to the hierarchical structure of the courts, and therefore confined itself to the amendment application.
Legal principles established
#- Amendments to pleadings sought before the hearing should be freely allowed if they can be made without injustice to the other side, and there is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs
- The court may at any time amend any defect or error in any proceeding, and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 4/11/24 is hereby allowed
- 2.Upon service of the amended plaint, the respondents shall have corresponding leave of 15 days to amend their pleadings if so desired
- 3.Thereafter, parties to expediently list the matter for case management and eventual hearing on priority basis
- 4.Costs shall be in favour of the 1st and 2nd respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 8 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules (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.
a. The application dated 4/11/24 is hereby allowed.
Upon service of the amended plaint, the respondents shall have corresponding leave of 15 days to amend their pleadings if so desired.
all amendments should be freely allowed and at any stage of the proceedings, provided that the amendment or joinder as the case may be, will not result in prejudice or injustice to the other party which cannot properly be compensated for in costs.
Costs shall be in favour of the 1st and 2nd respondents
Issues in the judgment
#The application was allowed in the applicant's favour, yet costs were awarded to the opposing 1st and 2nd respondents without explanation
The suit reference/case number of the matter is not stated anywhere in the judgment
Respondents argue the suit violates sections 34 and 35 of the Advocates Act, but the grounds state the defect as failure to endorse the name of the drawer of the verifying affidavit; the statutory basis for that point is not explained
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission v Nesco Services Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E211 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6927 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6927/eng@2025-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.