[2020] KEELC 2663 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 2663 (KLR)

The court found that there was no evidence of a Plaint having been filed or Summons to Enter Appearance having been issued or served on the Defendants since 2012. Without these foundational documents, there was no competent suit before the court. As such, the application to revive the suit, substitute parties, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 2663 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Jacob M. Nzomo; Plaintiff: Sela Muthike Maingi; Defendant: Daudi Wambua Nyaka; Defendant: Mutio Nyaka; Defendant: John Kioko Mutua; Defendant: Samuel Njagi; Defendant: Isaac Muthama Kimilu; Defendant: Lukenya Ranching Co-operative Society Limited; Applicant: Siriel Mbithe David; Applicant: Julius Mwanza Nzomo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 391 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Chamber Summons / Ruling on Application to Revive Suit and Substitute Parties
Outcome
Application and entire suit struck out for incompetence.
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Revival of Abated Suit, Substitution of Parties, Letters of Administration, Amendment of Pleadings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Revival of Abated Suit Substitution of Parties Letters of Administration Amendment of Pleadings

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

Jacob M. Nzomo

Plaintiff

Sela Muthike Maingi

Plaintiff

Daudi Wambua Nyaka

Defendant

Mutio Nyaka

Defendant

John Kioko Mutua

Defendant

Samuel Njagi

Defendant

Isaac Muthama Kimilu

Defendant

Lukenya Ranching Co-operative Society Limited

Defendant

Siriel Mbithe David

Applicant

Julius Mwanza Nzomo

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Chamber Summons / Ruling on Application to Revive Suit and Substitute Parties

  1. 1 Whether the suit can be revived after abatement due to the death of the 1st Plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants can be substituted as parties as legal administrators of the deceased's estate.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants are entitled to amend the Plaint and have the draft amended Plaint deemed as filed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no evidence of a Plaint having been filed or Summons to Enter Appearance having been issued or served on the Defendants since 2012. Without these foundational documents, there was no competent suit before the court. As such, the application to revive the suit, substitute parties, and amend the Plaint was without basis. The absence of a valid suit rendered the application incompetent, and both the application and the entire suit were struck out.

Court Disposition

Application and entire suit struck out for incompetence.

Orders

  • The Chamber Summons dated 16th October, 2019 is struck out.
  • The entire suit is struck out for being incompetent.