[2010] KEHC 787 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, George Kirima, had demonstrated that the original plaintiff was deceased and that he had obtained letters of administration for the estate. The delay in bringing the application for revival and substitution was reasonably explained, as the grant of letters of administration was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 787 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: M’Mugambi M’Murugu; Defendant: Rufus Kiambati M’Ikubu; Applicant: George Kirima
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 321 of 1993
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Revive Suit and Substitute Legal Representative
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- AM Cockar
- Legal Topics
- Revival of Suit, Substitution of Legal Representative, Delay in Prosecution
- 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
M’Mugambi M’Murugu
Plaintiff
Rufus Kiambati M’Ikubu
Defendant
George Kirima
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Revive Suit and Substitute Legal Representative
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be revived after abatement due to the death of the plaintiff.
- 2 Whether George Kirima should be appointed as the legal representative to prosecute the suit on behalf of the deceased plaintiff.
- 3 Whether the delay in bringing the application for substitution and revival is reasonably explained.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, George Kirima, had demonstrated that the original plaintiff was deceased and that he had obtained letters of administration for the estate. The delay in bringing the application for revival and substitution was reasonably explained, as the grant of letters of administration was only issued on 7th August 2009. The court noted that although a similar application had previously been dismissed as an abuse of process, the current application had not been considered on its merits. The court exercised its discretion to revive the suit and substitute the applicant as the legal representative, finding that justice required the matter to proceed to its logical...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- This suit is hereby revived.
- George Kirima, as legal representative of the deceased plaintiff, is appointed to prosecute the suit on behalf of and in substitution to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
CIVIL SUIT NO. 321 OF 1993
Lesiit J.
M’MUGAMBI M’MURUGU......................................................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RUFUS KIAMBATI M’IKUBU...............................................................................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The applicant in this case is George Kirima a son of the deceased who is the plaintiff in this suit. He is seeking an order of this court to revive this suit and appoint him as a legal representative of the deceased plaintiff in order to prosecute the suit on his behalf. The application is brought under Order xxiii rule 8(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application is dated 20th March 2000. It is based on three grounds:
1. That is only fair and just that this suit be revived as the applicant and other members of the deceased family are in occupation of the suit land.
2. The applicant is a lay man who did not know that he ought to have filed an application for appointment of legal representative within one year from the date of the death of the deceased.
3. The applicant is the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff.
There is no affidavit in support of this application. George Kirima argued the application in person. Initially he gave evidence in support of the suit before applying to be appointed a plaintiff in this suit. The only relevant thing the applicant stated in his sworn statement in court was that his father who is the plaintiff in the suit died in 1998; that he filed a succession cause No. 49 of 200 from which he obtained letters of administration which he has produced as Exhibit 6. He said that he is desirous to prosecute this case to its logical conclusion.
I have had occasion to go through the papers filed in this suit. I noted that the current application which is dated 30th March 2000 seeks the very same prayers as the one he filed dated 29th September 2009. The application dated 29th September was argued before Hon. Kasango J. on the 24th November 2009 in her ruling the learned judge observed the similarity between the application argued before her and the one dated 30th March 2000 which is the one before me. The learned Judge found that the latter application dated 29th September 2009 was an abuse of the court process and for that reason the learned Judge dismissed it. The current application has not therefore been considered on its merits.
I have considered the application the applicant has shown that the plaintiff is deceased he has produced the death certificate the applicant has also shown that he obtained letters of administration for the estate of the deceased plaintiff who is his father.The grant of letters of administration were obtained in a Succession Cause No. 49 of 2000 the letters were issued to the applicant on the 7th of August 2009. Considering that the applicant obtained the grant of letters of administration into the estate of the deceased on 7th of August 2009 I find that the delay in prosecuting the instant application is reasonably explained. I allow their petition in terms of prayer 1 and 2 of the Chamber Summons dated 20th March 2000 in the following terms:
1. This suit be and is hereby revived.
2. GEORGE KIRIMA the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff be and is hereby appointed to prosecute the suit on behalf of and in substitution to the plaintiff.
3. The costs of the application be borne by the applicant.
Read, signed and delivered at Meru on this 5th November 2010.
LESIIT, J
JUDGE