[1998] KEHC 233 (KLR)
The court held that no proceedings can be conducted in the absence of substitution following the death of the plaintiff, as required by law. Mr. David Karangi, not being a party to the suit nor an advocate, has no locus standi to file applications or appear in the matter. Previous court orders explicitly barred Mr....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1998] KEHC 233 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Krishen s/o Duragadass; Defendant: Mrs Priska Wambui w/o David Karangi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 2047 of 1976
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objections and Applications by Non Party
- Outcome
- Preliminary objection upheld; applications by Mr. Karangi struck out; costs to plaintiff's advocate.
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Locus Standi, Substitution of Parties, Contempt of Court
- 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
Krishen s/o Duragadass
Plaintiff
Mrs Priska Wambui w/o David Karangi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objections and Applications by Non Party
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether proceedings can continue after the death of the plaintiff without substitution of a legal representative.
- 2 Whether Mr. David Karangi has locus standi to file applications or appear in court in this matter.
- 3 Whether Mr. Karangi is in contempt of court by filing applications contrary to previous court orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that no proceedings can be conducted in the absence of substitution following the death of the plaintiff, as required by law. Mr. David Karangi, not being a party to the suit nor an advocate, has no locus standi to file applications or appear in the matter. Previous court orders explicitly barred Mr. Karangi from filing any applications without leave of court, and his continued attempts to do so are an abuse of process and amount to contempt. The preliminary objection was upheld, and all applications brought by Mr. Karangi were struck out, with costs awarded to the plaintiff's advocate.
Court Disposition
Preliminary objection upheld; applications by Mr. Karangi struck out; costs to plaintiff's advocate.
Orders
- All applications brought by Mr. Karangi are struck out.
- Mr. Karangi shall pay the costs occasioned by this application to the plaintiff's advocate.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO. 2047 OF 1976
KRISHEN S/O DURAGADASS......................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MRS PRISKA WAMBUI W/O
DAVID KARANGI...........................................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
When this matter came before me on 25th November, 1998, the learned counsel for the plaintiff raised three basic preliminary objections and submitted that the applications by Mr. David Karangi should be dismissed and he be punished for contempt of court.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff has pointed out that the plaintiff is now deceased and without any order for substitution no proceedings can be continued. He has also submitted that Mr. Karangi is not a party to these proceedings but his wife and therefore he has no locus standi to file any applications or appear in court as he is not a an advocate of this court. thirdly there is a court order directing that the Registry should not accept any application brought by Mr. Karangi without the leave of the court.
Mr Karangi has told the court that he is properly before the court the business was conferred upon his family and the plaintiffs close relatives are running the said business.
I have taken sometime to peruse this voluminous record before me. Many judges have handled this file. On many occasions they have reached concurrent findings. What has been raised by Mr. Raiji in his objections is nothing new. This has been communicated to Mr Karangi not only by way of affidavits but by the several rulings on the record.
The fact that the plaintiff has passed away is known to the man now posing as the defendant. A death certificate has been produced and is part of this record. No proceedings, I agree, can be conducted without substitution under the law.
In his ruling delivered on 9th February, 1994, Pall J. (as he then was) found that Mr. Karangi has no locus standi in this suit. The learned judge proceeded to say:
“ He has no right to keep on bringing applications in his own name as a defendant. I direct the registry not to accept any application in future filed by Mr Karangi in his own name as if he were a party to these proceedings. So far as he is concerned if he ever brings any application in future in his own name in defiance of this order he would be deemed to be in contempt of the court and shall be dealt with as such. As there has been a spate of frivolous and vexatious applications by the defendant and Mr Karangi, I direct the registry not to accept any application presented by or on behalf of the defendant without prior leave of the court”
Then in 1997, it was the turn of Kuloba J. to deal with this person. The learned judge observed that the question of Mr Karangi’s lack of locus standi has already been determined by Pall J (as he then was). The appeal court agreed. He still forces himself on the court. The learned judge continued:-
“Twenty years after litigation began the applicant still intermeddles into what does not concern him, and keeps on taking up the time of every judge in turns, with the same story heard and determined...........................previous judges have already ordered that the applicant should not be allowed to come to the court without express leave of the court to do so. One party has admittedly passed away. Litigation still goes on without the deceased party being represented in the matter by legal representative. This is obviously wrong....................I do not wish to contradict what other judges have decided in respect of applications by this person.”
With respect I agree with the sentiments, findings and holdings by my brother judges and have nothing useful to add. Litigation must surely come to an end and this extremely litigious person should be told enough is enough. I uphold the preliminary objection and strike out the applications brought by Mr Karangi. He shall pay the costs to the plaintiff’s advocate that have been occasioned by this application.
Orders accordingly.
Dated at Nairobi this 4th day of December, 1998.
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE