[2017] KEHC 1567 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff died on 27th August 2016 and no application for substitution was made within one year as required by Order 24(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court was not provided with a satisfactory explanation for the delay in prosecuting the suit or for the failure to substitute the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 1567 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Christopher Mwaniki; Defendant: Dr Jyotee Trivedy; Applicant: Mary Nyakio
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 189 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit abated and dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- LM Njuguna
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Abatement of Suit, Substitution of Parties
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Christopher Mwaniki
Plaintiff
Dr Jyotee Trivedy
Defendant
Mary Nyakio
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the suit has abated following the death of the plaintiff and failure to substitute within one year as per Order 24(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 3 Whether there is sufficient reason to extend time for substitution of the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff died on 27th August 2016 and no application for substitution was made within one year as required by Order 24(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court was not provided with a satisfactory explanation for the delay in prosecuting the suit or for the failure to substitute the plaintiff within the statutory period. As a result, the suit abated on 26th August 2017, and there was no longer a suit before the court. The court therefore dismissed the suit and awarded costs to the defendants.
Court Disposition
suit abated and dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution, having abated on 26th August 2017.
- Costs of the suit are awarded to the defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO.189 OF 2011
CHRISTOPHER MWANIKI..........................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DR JYOTEE TRIVEDY & ANOTHER.....................DEFENDANT
RULING
This matter came up in court on the 3/11/2017 for Notice to show cause why it should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. It was listed pursuant to a notice dated 9/10/2017 issued by the court under the provisions of order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Counsel for the plaintiff informed the court that the reason why the matter has not been prosecuted is because the plaintiff passed on and the widow having obtained letters of administration wishes to be substituted and prosecute the same. He urged the court to exercise its discretion to save the suit from dismissal.
Both Counsels for the defendants urged the court to dismiss the suit. Counsel for the first defendant submitted that no action has been taken in the suit since 2013 and that the reason given by Counsel for the plaintiff is not a good reason for failure to prosecute the suit. On his part, Mr. Mureithi associated himself with the submissions by the Counsel for the first defendant. He submitted that no reason has been given why no action was taken in the suit between the year 2013 and 2016 when the plaintiff passed on. He urged the court to dismiss the matter.
The court has considered the submissions by the parties herein. I have also perused the affidavit sworn by Dr. Chritopher K. O Kenyariri, the advocate on record for the plaintiff. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the plaintiff died on the 27th August, 2016 after which the family commenced the administration of the estate to identify a suitable administrator.
It is further deponed that the family of the deceased has now identified an adminstratrix who should be substituted with the deceased.
He has asked the court to make an order to substitute the administratrix one Mary Nyakio with the deceased.
The court notes that since the matter was filed in the year 2011 even the pre-trial directions have not been taken. The plaintiff has not even filed witnesses statements to date. Though the plaintiff died in the year 2016, the court was not told why no action was taken in the matter since 16/2/2015 when the pre-trail questionnaire was filed.
The deceased herein died on the 27th August 2016 as shown in the annexed grant of letters of administration, to date no substitution has been done.
Order 24(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that;
“Where within one year no application is made Under sub Rule (1), the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned, and on the application of the defendant the court may award to him the costs which he may have incurred in defending the suit to be recovered from the estate of the deceased plaintiff provided the court may for good reason on application extend time.”
Counsel for the plaintiff has asked the court to substitute the administratrix of the estate with the deceased. As it stands now there is no suit the same having abated on the 26th August 2017, one year after the death of the plaintiff.
The costs of the suit are awarded to the defendants.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi this 10thDay of November, 2017.
……………....
L. NJUGUNA
JUDGE
In the Presence of
…………………………. For the Plaintiff
…………………………. For the Defendant