[2015] KEHC 5512 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 5512 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants provided a convincing explanation for the delay in seeking substitution and revival of the abated suit, namely the time required to obtain a grant of letters of administration due to registry delays. Since the application was unopposed and the requirements of Order 24 rule 7(2)...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 5512 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: John Abunga Mogaka; Defendant: Richard Khisa Matayo (deceased); Defendant: Applicants (administrators of the estate of Richard Khisa Matayo)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 72 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Substitution and Revival of Abated Suit
Outcome
Application allowed. Applicants substituted as defendants. Civil Suit No. 76 of 2010 revived. Costs in the cause.
Judges
EO Obaga
Legal Topics
Abatement of Suit, Substitution of Parties, Revival of Suit
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Abatement of Suit Substitution of Parties Revival of Suit

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Abunga Mogaka

Plaintiff

Richard Khisa Matayo (deceased)

Defendant

Applicants (administrators of the estate of Richard Khisa Matayo)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Substitution and Revival of Abated Suit

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be substituted as defendants as legal representatives of the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether Civil Suit No. 76 of 2010, which had abated, should be revived.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants provided a convincing explanation for the delay in seeking substitution and revival of the abated suit, namely the time required to obtain a grant of letters of administration due to registry delays. Since the application was unopposed and the requirements of Order 24 rule 7(2) were satisfied, the court allowed the substitution of the applicants as defendants and revived Civil Suit No. 76 of 2010. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Applicants substituted as defendants. Civil Suit No. 76 of 2010 revived. Costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Applicants are allowed to continue the suit as legal representatives of the deceased.
  • Civil Suit No. 76 of 2010 is revived.