[2003] KEHC 653 (KLR)
The court held that under the Civil Procedure Rules, a next friend can only be appointed for a plaintiff who is under legal incapacity, not for a defendant. In cases where the defendant is of unsound mind or otherwise incapable of protecting their interests, the Rules provide for the appointment of a guardian ad...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] KEHC 653 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Eunice Kirunda Kinyua (Suing as the Administratrix of the estate of Joseph Kinyua Karani (Deceased)); Defendant: Daniel Kibiri Muturi; Applicant: Josephat Mwathi Kibiri
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 376 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- Application struck out with costs to the plaintiff, payable by the applicant.
- Legal Topics
- Next Friend Appointment, Legal Capacity, Guardian Ad Litem, Interlocutory Judgment
- 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
Eunice Kirunda Kinyua (Suing as the Administratrix of the estate of Joseph Kinyua Karani (Deceased))
Plaintiff
Daniel Kibiri Muturi
Defendant
Josephat Mwathi Kibiri
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Mr. Kibiri can be appointed as next friend of the defendant in this case.
- 2 Whether the interlocutory judgment entered against the defendant should be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that under the Civil Procedure Rules, a next friend can only be appointed for a plaintiff who is under legal incapacity, not for a defendant. In cases where the defendant is of unsound mind or otherwise incapable of protecting their interests, the Rules provide for the appointment of a guardian ad litem, not a next friend. Since Mr. Kibiri sought to be appointed as next friend of the defendant, his application was fundamentally misconceived and could not be granted. Consequently, he lacked locus standi to pursue any further relief in the suit, including the setting aside of the interlocutory judgment.
Court Disposition
Application struck out with costs to the plaintiff, payable by the applicant.
Orders
- The application by Mr. Kibiri is struck out.
- Costs of the application to the plaintiff, to be borne by Mr. Kibiri.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CIVIL CASE NO. 376 OF 1999
EUNICE KIRUNDA KINYUA (Suing as the Administratrix of the estate of JOSEPH KINYUA KARANI (Deceased) …..………...PLAINTIFF VERSUS DANIEL KIBIRI MUTURI ……………………………………...DEFENDANT
RULING
This is an application under Order IXA Rules 9 and 10, Order 1 Rule 10 and Order XXX1 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). In it, Josephat Mwathi Kibiri who was designated as the “Intended Next Friend” seeks in pertinent part the following orders:
“I. That the Applicant …. be made a next friend of the Defendant in this case;
II. That this Honourable Court be pleased to set aside or vacate the Interlocutory Judgment entered on June 19, 200 0 and any subsequent orders thereto.”
The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Joseph Mwathi Kibiri on September 25, 2001.
Looking at the material placed before me and considering the Submissions of Counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the primary question raised for determination is whether Mr. Kibiri is entitled to be made a next friend of the Defendant in this case.
Order XXX1 Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the provisions of Rules 1 to 14 shall extend to persons adjudged to be of unsound mind, and to persons who though not so adjudged are found by the court on inquiry, by reason of unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity, to be incapable of protecting their interests when suing or being sued. Under Order XXX1 Rule 1, a next friend is only available in cases where the person with legal incapacity is the Plaintiff. It does not relate to the Defendant as in this case. Where the Defendant has legal incapacity, Order XXX1 Rule 3 of the Rules provides for the appointment of a Guardian ad litem. On this conclusion alone, the application of Mr. Kibiri must fail. It follows that, in that event, he has no locus standi to agitate any other matter in the suit.
In the result, I strike out the application of Mr. Kibiri with costs to the Plaintiff which costs shall be borne by the said Mr. Kibiri.
Dated and Delivered at Nakuru this 28th day of May, 2003.
ALNASHIR VISRAM
JUDGE