[2021] KEELC 968 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a prima facie basis for their capacity to sue, as the 1st plaintiff was issued a valid Limited Grant of Letters of Administration in Machakos Succession Cause No. 548 of 2011, which had not been set aside or revoked. The amended plaint was filed with leave of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 968 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mary Njeri Mburu (suing as the legal representative of the estate of Karugu Guandai); Plaintiff: Patrick Njuguna Wachira; Defendant: Bob Robert Drani (sued as the legal representative of the estate of Patrick Fruto Drani)
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 717 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit Before Full Trial
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LC Komingoi
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out Pleadings, Capacity to Sue, Personal Representative Status, Amended Plaint, Succession and Estates
- 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
Mary Njeri Mburu (suing as the legal representative of the estate of Karugu Guandai)
Plaintiff
Patrick Njuguna Wachira
Plaintiff
Bob Robert Drani (sued as the legal representative of the estate of Patrick Fruto Drani)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit Before Full Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs have the legal capacity to institute the suit as personal representatives of the estate of Peter Karugu Guandai.
- 2 Whether the suit discloses a proper cause of action against the defendant.
- 3 Whether the suit should be struck out or dismissed at the interlocutory stage for want of capacity or cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a prima facie basis for their capacity to sue, as the 1st plaintiff was issued a valid Limited Grant of Letters of Administration in Machakos Succession Cause No. 548 of 2011, which had not been set aside or revoked. The amended plaint was filed with leave of court, and the 2nd plaintiff's joinder had been determined by the court. The court emphasized that striking out a suit at the interlocutory stage is a drastic measure to be used only in the clearest of cases, and that the issues raised by the defendant regarding capacity and cause of action should be canvassed at trial. No prejudice would be occasioned to the defendant if the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The notice of motion dated 12th November 2020 is dismissed.
- Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the main suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI
ELC NO 717 OF 2015
MARY NJERI MBURU
(suing as the legal representative of the estate of KARUGU GUANDAI...1ST PLAINTIFF
PATRICK NJUGUNA WACHIRA.............................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
=VERSUS=
BOB ROBERT DRANI (Sued as the legal representative of the estate of
PATRICK FRUTO DRANI..............................................................................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This is the notice of motion dated 12th November 2020 brought under Order 2 Rule 15(1)(a),(b),(c) and (d) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 1A,1B,& 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, and all other enabling provisions of the law.
2. It seeks for orders that:-
a) A declaratory order that the suit filed by the Plaintiffs is bad in law and is a non-starter for want of capacity and a proper cause of action.
b) A declaratory order that the suit filed by the Plaintiffs is bad in law and is a non-starter for want of cause of action.
c) The suit instituted by the Plaintiffs herein characterized by the amended plaint dated 14th June 2019 and the entire suit be dismissed/struck out.
d) Costs of and incidental to this suit.
3. The application is based on grounds on the face of the application and it is supported by the affidavit of Bob Robert Drani, the Defendant herein sworn on 12th November 2020.
4. He deponed that it has emerged that Winfred Nyambura Karugu is the only known widow and sole legally appointed personal representative of the Estate of Peter Karugu Guandai (Deceased) by dint of the Limited Grant of letters of administration ad colligenda bona issued to her in Nairobi High Court Succession Cause No.1931 of 2009: In the matter of the estate of Peter Karugu Guandai (deceased).
5. The application is opposed. There is a replying affidavit sworn by Mary Njeri Mburu, the 1st Plaintiff herein sworn on the 10th March 2021.
6. There are also grounds of opposition filed by the 2nd Plaintiff dated 3rd March 2021.
7. On the 22nd April 2021, the court with the consent of the parties directed that the application be canvassed by way of written submissions.
8. I have considered the notice of motion and the affidavit in support. I have also considered the replying affidavit and the grounds of opposition, the written submissions field on behalf of the parties and the authorities cited. The issue for determination is whether this application is merited.
9. It should be noted that this matter is part heard. The 1st Plaintiff testified on 5th February 2020. She told the court that she was issued Limited Grant of Letters of Administration in Machakos Succession Cause No 548 of 2011. In the matter of the Estate of Peter Karugu Guandai on 5th October 2011. The same was validly issued and has not been set aside and or revoked.
10. The 2nd Plaintiff’s application to be enjoined to these proceedings was determined by this court. The amended plaint dated 14th June 2019 was filed with leave of the court.
11. It is my view that the Plaintiffs ought to be heard on the claim. The defendant will raise all these issues during the trial. No prejudice will be occasioned to the Defendant if this matter is heard to conclusion.
I am guided by the case of Lavington Security Ltd vs Consolidated Bank of Kenya Ltd & 3 Others [2020] eKLR where the court stated as follows:-
“14. In the same breath, a court must exercise restraint and proceed very cautiously when it has been asked by a party to strike out pleadings before a matter has proceeded for full trial. Indeed, striking out pleadings before hearing of a matter is a draconian step and must be used sparingly and in the clearest of the cases as was held in the case of D.T. Dobie Co Ltd vs Muchina [1982] KLRand in the case ofGeminiaInsurance Co Limited vs Kennedy Otieno Onyango [2005] eKLR where Musinga J (as he then was) held as follows:
“It is trite law that striking out pleadings is a draconian step which ought to be employed in the clearest of cases and particularly where it is evident that the suit is beyond redemption”.
12. I find no merit in this application and the same is dismissed. The costs do abide the outcome of the main suit.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI ON THIS 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021.
............................
L. KOMINGOI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Mr. Mwangi for Mrs. Mwadumbo for the 1st Plaintiff
Ms Kamau for Mr. Mbigi for the 2nd Plaintiff
Mr. Nthei for Mrs. Lumumba for the Defendant
Steve – Court Assistant