[2007] KEHC 3022 (KLR)
The court held that, by virtue of the proviso to Section 2(1) of the Law Reform Act, a defamation suit does not survive the deceased plaintiff, regardless of whether interlocutory judgment had been entered in his favour. The interlocutory judgment was not final, as there was a pending application to set it aside....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 3022 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Hon. Emmanuel Karisa Maitha; Defendant: The Nation Media Group Ltd; Applicant: Rachel Maitha
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 1359 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Chamber Summons
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Defamation, Survival of Actions, Law of Succession, 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
Hon. Emmanuel Karisa Maitha
Plaintiff
The Nation Media Group Ltd
Defendant
Rachel Maitha
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Chamber Summons
Legal Issues
- 1 Does a defamation suit survive the death of the plaintiff under the Law Reform Act?
- 2 Is a Limited Grant of Letters of Administration Ad Litem sufficient for the applicant to proceed with the suit and claim proceeds?
- 3 What is the effect of a pending application to set aside interlocutory judgment in this context?
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, by virtue of the proviso to Section 2(1) of the Law Reform Act, a defamation suit does not survive the deceased plaintiff, regardless of whether interlocutory judgment had been entered in his favour. The interlocutory judgment was not final, as there was a pending application to set it aside. Furthermore, the applicant's reliance on a Limited Grant of Letters of Administration Ad Litem was insufficient, as such a grant does not empower the holder to deal with the proceeds of the suit under the Law of Succession Act, and there is no guarantee that the applicant would ultimately be entitled to a full grant. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs to the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The Chamber Summons dated 25th August, 2005 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 1359 of 2003
HON. EMMANUEL KARISA MAITHA ……….…..………….. PLAINTIFF
versus
THE NATION MEDIA GROUP LTD ……………...……….. DEFENDANT
AND
RACHEL MAITHA …………………………………..……….. APPLICANT
RULING
From what has been brought to my attention during the hearing of this Chamber Summons dated 25th August, 2005, the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent for the following reasons:
Firstly, this suit being a defamation suit, by reasons of the proviso to Section 2(1) of The Law Reform Act (Cap 26) which is in mandatory terms, the suit does not survive the deceased plaintiff even if the plaintiff died after an interlocutory judgment had been entered in his favour following failure by the Defendant to enter appearance and file defence within the prescribed time. This court also notes that there is a pending application by the Defendant to set aside the interlocutory judgment being relied upon by the Applicant, obviously not a final judgment entered after proof of relevant facts of the case.
Secondly, in so far as the Applicant is claiming to be a personal (legal) representative of the Deceased on the basis of a Limited Grant of Letter of Administration Ad Litem, that Grant is not good enough because:
(a) It enables the Applicant to acquire the proceeds of the suit when the same Grant gives her no power to deal with those proceeds in terms of Section 82 and 83 of the Law of Succession Act thereby creating the opportunity for intermeddling with that asset in the estate of the deceased.
(b) There is no guarantee that the Applicant, as the present holder of that Limited Grant, is the one to whom the full grant, in the estate of the deceased, will be issued.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 20th day of March, 2007
J.M. KHAMONI
JUDGE