[2018] KEELC 3784 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 3784 (KLR)

The court held that a suit cannot be brought against a person who is already deceased; such a suit is void ab initio. Substitution under Order 24 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules presupposes the existence of a valid suit against the deceased at the time of death. Since the 2nd defendant was already dead when the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 3784 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Manson Moreka Monyenye; Plaintiff: Clifford Nyagaka Makere; Defendant: David Omurwa Onyoni; Defendant: Harun Omurwa Mwamba; Defendant: James Nyabaro Mwamba; Defendant: District Land Registrar – Kisii; Defendant: District Surveyor – Kisii; Defendant: The Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 1228 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Substitution Applications
Outcome
Application for substitution of 3rd defendant allowed; application for substitution of 2nd defendant declined.
Judges
CM Kariuki
Legal Topics
Substitution of Parties, Deceased Defendant, Personal Representatives, Void Ab Initio Suit
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Substitution of Parties Deceased Defendant Personal Representatives Void Ab Initio Suit

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

Manson Moreka Monyenye

Plaintiff

Clifford Nyagaka Makere

Plaintiff

David Omurwa Onyoni

Defendant

Harun Omurwa Mwamba

Defendant

James Nyabaro Mwamba

Defendant

District Land Registrar – Kisii

Defendant

District Surveyor – Kisii

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Case / Ruling on Substitution Applications

  1. 1 Whether a valid suit existed against the 2nd defendant who was deceased at the time of filing the suit.
  2. 2 Whether substitution of the 2nd and 3rd defendants by their legal personal representatives is permissible under the law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a suit cannot be brought against a person who is already deceased; such a suit is void ab initio. Substitution under Order 24 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules presupposes the existence of a valid suit against the deceased at the time of death. Since the 2nd defendant was already dead when the suit was filed, there was never a valid suit against him, and thus no basis for substitution. Conversely, the application for substitution of the 3rd defendant by his widow was merited, as the 3rd defendant was alive when the suit was instituted and only died during its pendency. The court therefore allowed substitution for the 3rd defendant but declined it for the 2nd...

Court Disposition

Application for substitution of 3rd defendant allowed; application for substitution of 2nd defendant declined.

Orders

  • The name of the 2nd defendant is deleted from the proceedings.
  • Application for substitution of Peter Ongwae Omurwa as 2nd defendant is declined.