[2010] KECA 278 (KLR)

[2010] KECA 278 (KLR)

The court held that Rule 96(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules is mandatory and requires that an application for substitution of a deceased party be made within twelve months of death. In this case, the deceased appellant died on 6th July, 2008, and the application for substitution was filed on 28th July, 2009, which...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] KECA 278 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mary Wanjiru Njuguna; Respondent: Hezekiah Mathara
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal (Application) 8 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Substitution of Deceased Appellant
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Abatement of Appeal, Substitution of Parties, Appeal Timelines
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Abatement of Appeal Substitution of Parties Appeal Timelines

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Wanjiru Njuguna

Applicant

Hezekiah Mathara

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Substitution of Deceased Appellant

  1. 1 Whether the application for substitution of the deceased appellant with her legal representative was filed within the prescribed time under Rule 96 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal had abated due to lapse of time before the substitution application was made.
  3. 3 Whether sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act could be invoked to cure the delay in filing the substitution application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Rule 96(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules is mandatory and requires that an application for substitution of a deceased party be made within twelve months of death. In this case, the deceased appellant died on 6th July, 2008, and the application for substitution was filed on 28th July, 2009, which was 22 days outside the prescribed period. The court found that the use of the word 'shall' in the rule indicates strict compliance is required. The applicant did not provide a justified reason for the delay, nor was there a proper application for extension or revival of the appeal. The court further held that the inherent powers under sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for substitution is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.