Faida Martin Company & Two Others v Guyato Hegunda Guyo
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court at Malindi allowed a landowner to amend her defence and counterclaim, confirming that delay alone cannot block pleading amendments before judgment.
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 court should allow the defendant to amend her statement of defence and counterclaim as proposed
- 2.Whether the application has been brought after inordinate and unexplained delay
- 3.Whether the proposed amendment introduces a new and inconsistent cause of action
- 4.Whether the proposed amendments would prejudice the plaintiffs
Key legal issues
#Inordinate delay in seeking amendment
No inordinate delay; the suit had not proceeded to full hearing when the motion was filed.
The suit was filed in November 2024, the defence in March 2025 and the motion in January 2026. The suit had come up for mention only and had not been set down for the hearing of evidence, so the interval, including time taken to dispose of the motion, did not amount to inordinate delay.
New and inconsistent cause of action
The purchase claim was already pleaded; only the gift claim was new, and it was not disqualifying or inconsistent.
The defendant had already pleaded purchase by her late husband from Kambi Charo. The new element was the alleged gift of 4 acres out of Gede/Mijomboni/4. Since both the alleged donor and vendor were connected and the land formed part of one title, nothing disqualified the gift claim. Fraud had also been raised originally, so additional particulars were not irregular.
Prejudice to the plaintiffs
No prejudice; the suit is unheard and the plaintiffs may respond to the amended pleadings.
Because the suit had not been heard, no witness would need to be called twice. The plaintiffs would have an opportunity to reply to the amended defence and counterclaim, levelling the ground for both parties. The court therefore found no prejudice.
Legal principles established
#- Amendments to pleadings should be freely allowed any time before judgment; delay per se cannot defeat an application for amendment.
Court orders
#- 1.Application dated 16th January 2026 allowed as prayed in prayer number 1 (leave to amend the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim and to file supplementary lists of documents, witness statements)
- 2.Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, Supplementary Lists of Documents and of witnesses and Supplementary Witness Statements to be filed, paid for and served within 14 days of the order
- 3.Any response by the plaintiffs to the amended defence and counterclaim to be filed and served within 14 days of service
- 4.Matter listed for pre-trial mention on 22nd October 2026
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; amendment of pleadings under Order 8 rule 3(1) 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.
The general rule regarding amendments is that a court should freely allow amendments to pleadings any time before judgment.
delay per se cannot defeat application for amendment as no time can be spelt out for an application for amendment.
the application dated 16 th January 2026 has merit and it is hereby allowed as prayed in prayer number 1 thereof.
An Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim and the Supplementary Lists of Documents and of witnesses and the Supplementary Witness Statements shall be filed and paid for and served within 14 days of this order.
Issues in the judgment
#Date discrepancy between motion and supporting affidavit
Plaintiffs referred to as 'claimants' in the analysis
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Faida Martin Company & Two Others v Guyato Hegunda Guyo", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case Number 117 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5597/eng@2026-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.