[2022] KEELC 3551 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant failed to prosecute the previous application for substitution despite having obtained the necessary letters of administration ad litem shortly after the respondent's death. The appellant offered no explanation for the prolonged delay or for her non-attendance leading to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELC 3551 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Pauline Muthoni Laban; Respondent: Moses Kirimi Mbogori; Interested Party: Tabitha Gacheri Kirimi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 9 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Substitution of Respondent
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- CK Nzili
- Legal Topics
- Substitution of Parties, Delay in Prosecution, Letters of Administration, Appeal Procedure
- 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
Pauline Muthoni Laban
Appellant
Moses Kirimi Mbogori
Respondent
Tabitha Gacheri Kirimi
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Substitution of Respondent
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant has provided sufficient grounds for substitution of the deceased respondent with the proposed interested party.
- 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the application for substitution is excusable.
- 3 Whether the previous dismissal of a similar application for non-prosecution precludes the current application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant failed to prosecute the previous application for substitution despite having obtained the necessary letters of administration ad litem shortly after the respondent's death. The appellant offered no explanation for the prolonged delay or for her non-attendance leading to the dismissal of the earlier application. The court held that the appellant's conduct demonstrated inordinate and inexcusable delay, and that the reasons advanced for substitution were misleading. As a result, the court found no merit in the present application and declined to grant the orders sought.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated April 4, 2022 for substitution of the respondent is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Laban v Mbogori; Kirimi (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Appeal 9 of 2017) [2022] KEELC 3551 (KLR) (4 May 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEELC 3551 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Meru
Environment and Land Appeal 9 of 2017
CK Nzili, J
May 4, 2022
Between
Pauline Muthoni Laban
Appellant
and
Moses Kirimi Mbogori
Respondent
and
Tabitha Gacheri Kirimi
Interested Party
Ruling
1. By an application dated April 4, 2022 the court is asked to order substitution of the respondent herein with the proposed interested party. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Pauline Muthoni Laban on the even date. The reasons given are that this appeal was filed in April 2018 but the respondent passed on before it could be concluded. That the respondent herein filed an application on July 29, 2019 but remained unprosecuted for lack of a grant but eventually a citation was filed in Meru MC Misc Succession Application No 82 of 2019 to compel the proposed interested party to take out letters of administration; there is a stay order by court of parties and that the appeal has been admitted for hearing. The sworn affidavit repeats the above grounds save to state that the application dated July 29, 2019 was dismissed by the court.
2. The applicant has attached a copy of the citation and the grant ad litem as annexures marked PM “1” and PML “2” respectively. On February 15, 2022, the court dismissed the application dated July 29, 2019 for non- prosecution. The date had been taken by the appellant who never appeared before the court to argue and prosecute the application yet it was in her interest to fast track their appeal.
3. In the said application the affidavit had been sworn by the same person as in the instant application. There has been no application for the review of the orders made on February 15, 2022 and any reasons given for non-attendance and non-prosecution of the said application. The appellant cannot eat her cake and at the same time have it.
4. There has been inordinate delay of one and half months since the dismissal. This coupled with the delay of over three years in prosecuting the application given the letter ad litem were issued on October 24, 2018 shows the appellant is misleading the court by alleging the delay was occasioned by lack of letter of administration ad litem.
5. The memorandum of appeal was filed on April 5, 2018 after which the respondent passed on October 1, 2018. The letters of administration ad litem were issued on October 24, 2018 to pursue this appeal among other cases. This was hardly a month after the death of the respondent and less than six months after the appeal was filed. It took the appellant over ten months to file the application dated 29. 7.2019 and close to over three years to prosecute it.
6. This court therefore finds no merits in the instant application more so when a similar one was dismissed for non-prosecution as alluded above.Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT THIS 4TH DAY OF MAY, 2022In presence of:AppellantHON. C.K. NZILIELC JUDGE