[2022] KEELC 2650 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 2650 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had provided a sufficient explanation for the delay in seeking substitution, namely the refusal by the local chief to issue the necessary identification letter until compelled by court intervention. The court held that the cause of action, being a land matter, survived the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 2650 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kemunto Okongo alias Truphena (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Peter Okong’o Kimuma); Defendant: Alex Mogaka Okong’o; Defendant: Geoffrey Omboye Ontere
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 6 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application to Revive Abated Suit and for Substitution of Plaintiff
Outcome
Application allowed. Suit revived. Substitution of plaintiff granted. Costs to applicant.
Judges
JM Onyango
Legal Topics
Abatement of Suit, Substitution of Parties, Revival of Suit, Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Abatement of Suit Substitution of Parties Revival of Suit Land Disputes

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

Kemunto Okongo alias Truphena (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Peter Okong’o Kimuma)

Plaintiff

Alex Mogaka Okong’o

Defendant

Geoffrey Omboye Ontere

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application to Revive Abated Suit and for Substitution of Plaintiff

  1. 1 Whether the court should revive the suit herein which has abated.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant should substitute the late Peter Okong’o Kimuma as the Plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had provided a sufficient explanation for the delay in seeking substitution, namely the refusal by the local chief to issue the necessary identification letter until compelled by court intervention. The court held that the cause of action, being a land matter, survived the deceased, and that the applicant, as the legal representative, was entitled to seek revival of the suit. The respondent did not challenge the sufficiency of the applicant's explanation. Exercising its discretion under Order 24 Rules 3 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court allowed the application, revived the abated suit, enlarged the time for substitution, and ordered that the...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Suit revived. Substitution of plaintiff granted. Costs to applicant.

Orders

  • The suit which abated on December 10, 2018 is hereby revived.
  • Time for substitution of the plaintiff is hereby enlarged.