Kenya Church of Christ (Suing Through) Bishop Peter Macharia Wachira & 2 others v Karumbi & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 266 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 610 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed a defendant to amend his defence late in a land dispute, confirming courts freely permit amendments before trial unless the other side is prejudiced.
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 1st Defendant should be granted leave to amend his statement of defence dated 5th December 2022 and to file his witness statement
Key legal issues
#Whether leave to amend the statement of defence should be granted at a late stage
The amendments were allowed because the suit had not proceeded to hearing, the amendments went to the root of the Plaintiffs' title rather than substituting a new cause of action, and no prejudice was demonstrated; pleadings would reopen for all parties.
The court applied section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 8 Rules 3 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which permit amendment at any stage to determine the real question in controversy. Relying on Tarmohamed v Mariakani Holdings and Elijah Kipngeno Arap Bii, it held amendments should be liberally allowed where injustice can be compensated by costs. Since the fulcrum of the dispute was ownership of the suit properties, the amendments helped the court appreciate the root of the Plaintiffs' title, and the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate prejudice.
Whether the 1st Defendant should be granted leave to file his witness statement out of time
Leave was granted under Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act, given the court's discretion to enlarge time and the fair-hearing guarantee in Article 50 of the Constitution.
Order 7 Rule 5 requires witness statements to accompany the defence, but the court retains discretion to enlarge time under Order 50 Rule 6 and section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act. Following Marclus Kiranga Nimrod, the court noted neither Order 3 nor Order 7 prohibits accepting late-filed statements, and Article 50's fair hearing guarantee supports allowing relevant evidence. Since the trial had not commenced, no prejudice would be caused to the Plaintiffs, who would also be at liberty to file further witness statements.
Legal principles established
#- Amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed if they can be made without injustice to the other side, or where such injustice can be compensated by costs
- A trial court is not barred from allowing a party, with leave, to introduce witness statements and documents out of time, having regard to the reason for the delay, the stage of proceedings and prejudice
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st Defendant's application is allowed; the 1st Defendant is granted leave to amend his pleadings dated 5th December 2022
- 2.The 1st Defendant is granted leave of fourteen (14) days to file and serve the Amended Defence including witness statements
- 3.The Plaintiffs and the rest of the Defendants are granted leave of fourteen (14) days to file and serve their respective amended pleadings and witness statements if need be
- 4.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 8 and Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules
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.
I grant the 1st Defendant leave of fourteen (14) days to file and serve the Amended Defence including witness statements. Upon service, I grant the Plaintiffs and the rest of the Defendants’ leave of fourteen (14) days to file and Serve their respective amended Pleadings and witness statements if need be.
the amendments sought are not going to substitute a new cause of action as claimed by the Plaintiffs but enable the Court appreciate the facts in respect to the root of the Plaintiffs’ title
Further, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any prejudice, they will suffer if the amendment sought is granted.
amendments should be liberally allowed, if they can be made without injustice to the other side, or where such injustice can be compensated by costs.
Costs will be in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to 'the instant Notice of Motion application' when the application before the court is described as a Chamber Summons application
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Church of Christ (Suing Through) Bishop Peter Macharia Wachira & 2 others v Karumbi & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 266 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 610 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/610/eng@2026-02-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.