[2018] KEELC 2374 (KLR)
The court found that the application for substitution and revival of the suit was brought after inordinate delay, with no sufficient explanation for the failure to act within the prescribed period. The applicant's reliance on the mistake of counsel was not justified, as there was no evidence of genuine error or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2374 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lalitchandra Durgashanker Pandya; Plaintiff: Private Rameshandra Pandya; Defendant: E. K. Baya; Defendant: Amina S. Mwinyi; Defendant: Francis K. Nzai; Defendant: Mark Owango
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 404 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Revive Abated Suit and for Substitution of Deceased Plaintiff
- Outcome
- Application dismissed in part; prayer for revival and substitution refused; prayer for representation by power of attorney granted as a formality; each party to bear own costs.
- Judges
- AA Omollo
- Legal Topics
- Abatement of Suit, Substitution of Parties, Extension of Time, Joint Ownership, Power of Attorney
- 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
Lalitchandra Durgashanker Pandya
Plaintiff
Private Rameshandra Pandya
Plaintiff
E. K. Baya
Defendant
Amina S. Mwinyi
Defendant
Francis K. Nzai
Defendant
Mark Owango
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Revive Abated Suit and for Substitution of Deceased Plaintiff
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be revived after abatement due to the death of the 1st plaintiff.
- 2 Whether sufficient cause has been shown to justify extension of time for substitution of the deceased plaintiff.
- 3 Whether the holder of a power of attorney requires court permission to proceed on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for substitution and revival of the suit was brought after inordinate delay, with no sufficient explanation for the failure to act within the prescribed period. The applicant's reliance on the mistake of counsel was not justified, as there was no evidence of genuine error or diligence on the part of the applicant or their advocate. The court also noted that the suit property was jointly owned, and the surviving plaintiff could adequately represent the interests of the deceased. Therefore, no sufficient cause was shown to warrant the revival of the suit or substitution of the deceased plaintiff. The court dismissed the prayers for revival and...
Court Disposition
Application dismissed in part; prayer for revival and substitution refused; prayer for representation by power of attorney granted as a formality; each party to bear own costs.
Orders
- Prayers 1 and 2 of the motion (revival of suit and substitution of deceased plaintiff) are dismissed.
- Prayer 3 (permission for holder of power of attorney to proceed) is granted as a formality; the surviving plaintiff may be represented by the donee.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MOMBASA
ELC CIVIL SUIT NO. 404 OF 2017
LALITCHANDRA DURGASHANKER PANDYA
PRIVATE RAMESHANDRA PANDYA........PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS
-VERSUS-
E. K. BAYA
AMINA S. MWINYI
FRANCIS K. NZAI
MARK OWANGO....................................DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS
RULING
1. For determination is the notice of motion application dated 9th March 2016 but filed in Court on the 24th November 2016. The applicant seeks the following orders:
1. That this Honourable Court be pleased to revive this suit which has abated in respect of the 1st plaintiff who is deceased.
2. That KAMLESH PANDYA be made a party to this suit in place of the 1st plaintiff who is deceased.
3. That HARSHIT MULVANTRAI RAWAL the donee of a Power of Attorney by the plaintiffs be allowed to proceed with this suit on their behalf.
4. That costs of this application be in the cause.
2. It is deposed by the applicant that the 1st plaintiff died on 3rd June 2014 making the 1st plaintiff’s suit to abate on 2nd June 2015. The applicant deposes that the failure to file the application for substitution was their advocate’s mistake since the file was not brought to his attention after they filed a notice of change of advocate and that mistake of counsel should not be visited upon the applicant. The applicant also states that no formal order for abatement has been recorded in the Court file. That he has shown sufficient cause and therefore urges the Court to allow the application.
3. The application is opposed by the defendants. The 1st defendant deposed that the reasons given for not filing the application in time are not cogent to warrant this Court to grant the orders as prayed. That the application has been brought after inordinate delay considering that the letters of administration were applied for and obtained by 27th February 2015. Further that the administrator should not make this application having donated powers of attorney to someone else. He therefore urged the Court to dismiss the application.
4. I have considered the submissions filed in support of and against the application. Order 24 rule 3 (1) provides that a deceased party shall be substituted within a period of one year from the date of death. The applicants herein state that this was not done due to an inadvertence on the part of their advocates on record. There is a provision under rule 3 of Order 24 that “the Court may extend time where good reasons is given.” Is the inadvertence on the part of an advocate good reason?
5. The application was supposed to have been brought on or before 2nd June 2015. The applicant annexed a copy of an ad litem grant issued to him on 27th February 2015. The notice of change of advocates was filed on 24th March 2015. Both of these was before the suit had abated. The purpose for obtaining the grant is stated on the face of the certificate as “filing and defending suits.” No explanation has been given by the advocate on record why they did not file the application for substitution together with the notice of change as nothing was barring them from doing so.
6. This application was also ready by 9th March 2016 and presented to Court for assessment on 10th March 2016 as per the date stated. No explanation has been made why the same was not filed until 24th November 2016. The applicant having signed an affidavit in March 2016 ought to have followed up on the progress of his case. It is not enough to merely state that mistake of an advocate should not be visited on his client without giving reasons to justify that the mistake if any was genuine. Mistake of an advocate should not be used as a blanket even where the indolence on the party seeking the exercise of discretion of the Court in its favour is glaring as in this case.
7. In any event, the suit property is jointly owned by the 2nd plaintiff who is surviving. The applicant has not specified what prejudice he will suffer if the suit proceeds with only one plaintiff. It is my considered view and I so hold that the deceased plaintiff’s interest can still be taken care of, as the registration was joint. Therefore no cause has been shown to justify the extension of time in an application brought after inordinate delay (2 ½ years after the death of the 1st plaintiff). Prayers 1 & 2 the motion is hereby dismissed. The holder of power of attorney does not need permission of the Court to represent the donor. This Court granting prayer 3 is just a formality. The surviving plaintiff is at liberty to be represented by his/her donee. Lastly I order each party to meet their costs of the application.
Dated, signed & delivered at Mombasa this 20th July 2018
A. OMOLLO
JUDGE