1. I have considered the Notice of Motion Application dated 4th June 2024 together with the replying affidavit sworn on 8th November, 2024, the submissions of the parties, and the applicable law.
2. The Application seeks to strike out the amended paint on the basis that the same was filed without leave of the court.
3. The applicable law is found at Order 8 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It states as follows:
Amendment of pleading without leave [Order 8, rule 1.]
(1) A party may, without the leave of the court, amend any of his pleadings once at any
time before the pleadings are closed.
4. The Respondent submitted that the plaintiff commenced a suit by way of a plaint dated 7 September 2016 and filed on 16 September 2016. The defendant filed a statement of defence on 31 October 2016 and served on 2 November 2016. The plaintiff subsequently filed an amended plaint on 14th November 2016.
5. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that a party may not be substituted under Order 8 rule 1. He submitted that substitution of a party may only be carried out under Order 8 rule 3(3).
6. Looking at the same it is clear from Order 8 rule 3(2), the same relates to substitution of parties after the time has expired and pleadings have expired and not before. In addition, the same provides that any Application for disallowance of the amendment ought to have been made within 14 days of the amendment. This did not happen.
7. Further counsel did not file any authority to the effect of his submission that party may not be substituted pursuant to Order 8 rule 1.
8. The defendant did not dispute the facts as stated above in relation to the timelines within which the pleadings were filed, and I therefore find that the amendment was made in accordance with Order 8 rule 1, being a period of 14 days from the date of service by the defendant of his defence upon the plaintiff.
9. Further I note that the Application is brought more than eight years after the amendment. No explanation has been given for the delay which is prolonged.
10. The Application is dismissed with costs.
2. The Application seeks to strike out the amended paint on the basis that the same was filed without leave of the court.
3. The applicable law is found at Order 8 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It states as follows:
Amendment of pleading without leave [Order 8, rule 1.]
(1) A party may, without the leave of the court, amend any of his pleadings once at any
time before the pleadings are closed.
4. The Respondent submitted that the plaintiff commenced a suit by way of a plaint dated 7 September 2016 and filed on 16 September 2016. The defendant filed a statement of defence on 31 October 2016 and served on 2 November 2016. The plaintiff subsequently filed an amended plaint on 14th November 2016.
5. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that a party may not be substituted under Order 8 rule 1. He submitted that substitution of a party may only be carried out under Order 8 rule 3(3).
6. Looking at the same it is clear from Order 8 rule 3(2), the same relates to substitution of parties after the time has expired and pleadings have expired and not before. In addition, the same provides that any Application for disallowance of the amendment ought to have been made within 14 days of the amendment. This did not happen.
7. Further counsel did not file any authority to the effect of his submission that party may not be substituted pursuant to Order 8 rule 1.
8. The defendant did not dispute the facts as stated above in relation to the timelines within which the pleadings were filed, and I therefore find that the amendment was made in accordance with Order 8 rule 1, being a period of 14 days from the date of service by the defendant of his defence upon the plaintiff.
9. Further I note that the Application is brought more than eight years after the amendment. No explanation has been given for the delay which is prolonged.
10. The Application is dismissed with costs.