[2015] KEHC 3361 (KLR)
The court found that the application for substitution was facilitative and necessary to align the proceedings with the new constitutional framework established by the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Since the Municipal Council of Meru had ceased to exist and its legal obligations had devolved to the County Government...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 3361 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Daniel Riungu Mathiu; Applicant: Gerald Murira M’Mbwiria; Applicant: Andrew Mungatia Anjuri; Applicant: Silas Kamathi Ayub; Respondent: Municipal Council of Meru; Respondent: John Kabiti Mukango; Respondent: Eutychus Muthui; Respondent: Emily Karambu Muthui; Respondent: Musa M’Kirera; Respondent: County Government of Meru County
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 54 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Substitution of Party
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Party Substitution, Successor Liability, Constitutional Transition
- 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
Daniel Riungu Mathiu
Applicant
Gerald Murira M’Mbwiria
Applicant
Andrew Mungatia Anjuri
Applicant
Silas Kamathi Ayub
Applicant
Municipal Council of Meru
Respondent
John Kabiti Mukango
Respondent
Eutychus Muthui
Respondent
Emily Karambu Muthui
Respondent
Musa M’Kirera
Respondent
County Government of Meru County
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Substitution of Party
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st defendant, Municipal Council of Meru, should be substituted with the County Government of Meru County following its dissolution under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
- 2 Whether the substitution is necessary to facilitate the proceedings in accordance with the new constitutional dispensation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for substitution was facilitative and necessary to align the proceedings with the new constitutional framework established by the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Since the Municipal Council of Meru had ceased to exist and its legal obligations had devolved to the County Government of Meru County, the substitution was required to ensure that the suit continued against the proper legal entity. The absence of opposition from the respondents further supported the grant of the orders sought. The court exercised its discretion to allow the substitution to give effect to the constitutional transition and to avoid procedural injustice.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The Plaintiff/Applicants are allowed to substitute the name of the 1st defendant with the County Government of Meru County.
- All references to the 1st defendant in the pleadings shall be deemed to refer to the County Government of Meru County.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
HCC NO 54 OF 2008
DANIEL RIUNGU MATHIU
GERALD MURIRA M’MBWIRIA
ANDREW MUNGATIA ANJURI
SILAS KAMATHI AYUB...............................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANTS
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF MERU
JOHN KABITI MUKANGO
EUTYCHUS MUTHUI
EMILY KARAMBU MUTHUI
MUSA M’KIRERA..............................DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS
RULING
This application is dated 23rd January, 2015. It seeks Orders.
1. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to make an order allowing the Plaintiff/Applicants to substitute the name of the 1st defendant in the proceedings herein with the name of the COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF MERU COUNTY.
2. THAT upon granting of prayer No. 1 above the pleadings herein be deemed to have been duly amended to the effect that all and any references made in the pleadings regarding the 1st defendant be deemed to have been made in regard to the COUNTY GOVERMENT OF MERU COUNTY and all pleadings filed by the 1st defendant be deemed to have been filed by the COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF MERU COUNTY.
3. THAT the costs of this application be costs in the cause.
It has the following grounds:-
The Plaintiffs/Applicants instituted this suit against the MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF MERU and four others way back in the year 2003 but now with the promulgation of the new constitution in 2010, the 1st defendant has ceased to exist.
The 1st defendant is now no longer in existence and has been succeeded by the COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF MERU COUNTY and who, by operation of the Law, have assumed all assets and liabilities (past, present and future) of the 1st defendant herein (now defunct).
The said changes have therefore made it necessary for the said 1st defendant to be removed from the proceedings herein and to be substituted by its successor.
The Nature, facts and circumstances herein are in favour of granting of the prayers being sought for by the Plaintiffs/Applicants through this application.
On 13/07/2015, the Parties told the Court that they did not oppose the application. I find that the application is merely facilitative to allow the County Government to be enjoined in the suit to accord with the imperatives of the new constitutional dispensation spawned by the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
In the circumstances, the application is allowed.
It is so ordered.
Delivered in open Court at Meru this 13th day of July, 2015 in the presence of:-
CC: Daniel/Lilian
Mutegi holding brief for Atheru for County Government of Meru
Manases Kariuki for Plaintiffs
Miss Kungu for 6th and 7th Defendant
Gitonga for 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants.
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE