https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5216
The court found that the appellant died on 29 December 2024, a death certificate confirmed the fact, and no application for substitution, enlargement of time, or revival was filed within the period prescribed by Order 24 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules; the appeal had therefore abated and the motion to strike it...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 5216 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant / Respondent in the Ruling Narrative; Suing on Her Own Behalf and as Estate Manager of David Kabucu Mwagi: Anne Waruguru Kabucu; Respondent / Appellant in the Ruling Narrative: Thetu Mwangi Migwi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Civil Appeal E073 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Notice of Motion to Strike Out Appeal for Abatement
- Outcome
- Application allowed; appeal struck out as abated
- Judges
- ["LT Lewa"]
- Legal Topics
- Abatement of Suit/appeal, Substitution of Deceased Party, Order 24 Civil Procedure Rules, Costs
- 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
Anne Waruguru Kabucu
Applicant / Respondent in the Ruling Narrative; Suing on Her Own Behalf and as Estate Manager of David Kabucu Mwagi
Thetu Mwangi Migwi
Respondent / Appellant in the Ruling Narrative
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Notice of Motion to Strike Out Appeal for Abatement
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal had abated following the death of the appellant
- 2 Whether failure to seek substitution within one year under Order 24 rule 4 required striking out the appeal
- 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to costs
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant died on 29 December 2024, a death certificate confirmed the fact, and no application for substitution, enlargement of time, or revival was filed within the period prescribed by Order 24 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules; the appeal had therefore abated and the motion to strike it out was merited.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; appeal struck out as abated
Orders
- The appeal is struck out as it has abated.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KERUGOYA** **ELC CIVIL APPEAL NO. E073 OF 2024** **ANNE WARUGURU KABUCU(*Suing on her own behalf and as the*** ***estate manager of* DAVID KABUCU MWAGI..........................APPLICANT** **=VERSUS=** **THETU MWANGI MIGWI ...............................................RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. Falling for determination in this ruling is the Notice of Motion dated **1st April 2026** brought by **Anne Waruguru Kabucu** ***[referred to in this ruling as “the applicant”].*** Through it, the applicant seeks the following verbatim orders: 2. ***That this Honourable court be pleased to strike out the appeal as it has abated.*** 3. ***That the cost of this application be borne by the Appellant.*** 4. The application was premised on the grounds set out on the face of the motion and the applicant’s supporting affidavit dated ***1st April 2026.*** 5. The case of the applicant is that the appellant filed the appeal against the respondent on ***16th December 2024.*** She contends that the appellant died on ***29th December 2024*** and no substitution has been done by the estate. The applicant further contends that it is in the interest of justice that the appeal is struck out as it has abated. 6. The respondent did not file any response. 7. Against this background, I am to make a finding on whether or not, the application, and by extension, the orders sought herein can grant as prayed. **ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION** 1. I have considered the provisions of law upon which this motion sits. I have equally weighed on the averments made on the supporting affidavit deponed by the Respondent/Applicant. 2. **Order 24 Rules 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules,** provides for substitution in the event of death of a plaintiff or in the event of death of a defendant, and applies to the scenario where a defendant to a counter-claim dies. 3. For avoidance of doubt***, Order 24 Rule 4*** ***of the Civil Procedure Rules*** states as follows: ***“ 4. (1) Where one of two or more defendants dies and the cause of action does not survive or continue against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, or a sole defendant or sole surviving defendant dies and the cause of action survives or continues, the court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit.*** ***(2) Any person so made a party may make any defence appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased defendant.*** ***(3) Where within one year no application is made under sub rule(1), the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant.”*** 1. From the record, it is confirmed that the appellant died on **29.12.2024** while at the sunset age of Seventy (70) years. ***A DEATH CERTIFICATE*** was annexed confirming the same. 2. Ever since, no application has been filed for enlargement of time, substitution or revival of any part of this cause, particularly taking to mind the strict provisions of ***Order 24 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules which makes it mandatory for substitution to occur within twelve (12) months of the passing on, of a claimant.*** 3. On that account, and taking cognition of the law and the facts as outlined, I am persuaded to allow the prayers sought, as the motion is found with merit. 4. The file is hereby closed. **RULING IS DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026** **L.T. LEWA** **JUDGE** **IN THE PRESENCE OF:** **APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: No appearance** **RESPONDENT/APPLICANT: Mr. Mwangi Maina** **COURT ASSISTANT: Mr. Musyimi**