[2014] KEHC 4333 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 4333 (KLR)

The court held that since the original suit (SRMCC 437/00) had abated, any application for revival must be made within that abated suit and not in the appellate proceedings. The application for revival and substitution filed in the appellate court was therefore incompetent. The court agreed with the respondent's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 4333 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Cresent Transporters Co. Ltd.; Respondent: John Munyao Kisolo (suing for and on behalf of the estate of James Mativo Munyu)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 68 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Revival and Substitution
Outcome
application struck out with costs
Judges
BT Jaden
Legal Topics
Abatement of Suit, Revival of Suit, Substitution of Parties
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Abatement of Suit Revival of Suit Substitution of Parties

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cresent Transporters Co. Ltd.

Appellant

John Munyao Kisolo (suing for and on behalf of the estate of James Mativo Munyu)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Revival and Substitution

  1. 1 Whether the application for revival and substitution can be entertained in the current proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether substitution can be carried out in a non-existent (abated) suit.
  3. 3 Whether the application for revival was filed in the correct court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that since the original suit (SRMCC 437/00) had abated, any application for revival must be made within that abated suit and not in the appellate proceedings. The application for revival and substitution filed in the appellate court was therefore incompetent. The court agreed with the respondent's submissions and struck out the application with costs, emphasizing that substitution cannot occur in a non-existent suit and that the proper procedure was not followed.

Court Disposition

application struck out with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 18/12/2012 is struck out with costs.