Phyllis Jepkemoi Kiplagat (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Thomas Ego Bore) v The Catholic Dioceses of Eldoret (Registered) alias Diocese of Eldoret Trustees (Registered), Vipul Ratilal Dodhia, Seville International Limited, Bank of Baroda & Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu Land Registry
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused a landowner's late attempt to add fraud and trust claims to a 2019 adverse possession suit, and ordered her to pay the defendants' costs.
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 applicant has met the threshold for the grant of leave to further amend her Amended Originating Summons
- 2.Who shall bear the costs of the present application
Key legal issues
#Whether leave to further amend the Amended Originating Summons should be granted
Refused. The proposed amendments (fraudulent transfer, removal of caution, validity of charge, constructive trust) are separate and distinct from adverse possession, alter the substratum of the suit, may oust the court's jurisdiction via limitation, are prejudicial, and are unexplained by a 7-year delay.
Applying Order 8 Rules 3 and 5(1) and the principles in Elijah Kipngeno Arap Bii v Kenya Commercial Bank, the court held amendments should serve determination of the real questions in dispute without prejudice. The proposed amendments introduced a substantially different character of case and a limitation-defeating new claim, and no explanation was offered for the inordinate delay.
Whether the Originating Summons should be converted to a plaint and replying affidavits deemed a defence
Prayers overtaken by events; no statutory basis for conversion exists, but directions deeming the OS a plaint were issued on 03.03.2020 and the plaintiff's case was already heard by viva voce evidence.
The court noted there is no statutory underpinning for conversion, only a practice of issuing directions. The record showed the deceased plaintiff and two witnesses had already testified and the plaintiff's case closed before Hon. E. Obaga J, rendering the prayers moot.
Costs of the application
Costs follow the event; the 1st to 4th respondents are entitled to costs borne by the applicant.
Having found the applicant failed to meet the threshold for the orders sought, the court applied the settled principle that costs follow the event unless the court directs otherwise.
Legal principles established
#- An application for amendment of pleadings may be entertained at any stage of the proceedings before final judgment, including after the close of a party's case
- Amendments that introduce substantive issues altering the substratum of the suit, that would deprive a defendant of a limitation defence, or that are unexplained by delay, should be refused
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion Application dated 11th March, 2026 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 1st to 4th defendants/respondents, to be borne by the applicant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (implied); application brought under Order 8 Rules 3 and 5(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Conversion of the Originating Summons to a plaint and hearing by viva voce evidence (prayers 2 and 3)
Overtaken by events; directions for conversion were already issued on 03.03.2020 and the plaintiff's case was heard by viva voce evidence
Leave to further amend the Amended Originating Summons to introduce claims of fraud, removal of caution, validity of the charge and constructive trust
Amendments introduce a new case of a substantially different character, are prejudicial, may defeat limitation defence, and are marked by inordinate delay
Leave to reopen the applicant's case and file further witness lists and statements
Fell with the dismissal of the application; no new evidence or special circumstances demonstrated
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the 1st to 4th defendants/respondents, to be borne by the applicant
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.
In view of the foregoing, it is the finding of this court that the Notice of Motion Application dated 11th March, 2026 is not merited and is hereby dismissed with costs to the 1st to 4th defendants/respondents.
It is so ordered.
amounts to an introduction of substantive issues that would alter the substratum of the main suit herein thus an introduction of a new case of a substantially different character.
the applicant has not tendered any explanation on the inordinate delay of 7 years before filing of the present application for amendment.
The general rule is that amendment should be allowed if it can be made without causing injustice or prejudice to the other party that cannot be compensated by costs.
It is well settled that costs follow the event unless the court directs otherwise.
Issues in the judgment
#Application dated 11th March 2026 in a suit filed 2019; hearing dates of 2026 appear anachronistic but are as printed
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Phyllis Jepkemoi Kiplagat (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Thomas Ego Bore) v The Catholic Dioceses of Eldoret (Registered) alias Diocese of Eldoret Trustees (Registered), Vipul Ratilal Dodhia, Seville International Limited, Bank of Baroda & Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu Land Registry", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. 15 of 2019 (OS). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6107/eng@2026-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.