[2017] KEELC 2321 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 2321 (KLR)

The court found that while the respondent was the legal representative of the deceased defendant, the applicants delayed inordinately in bringing the application for substitution and revival, with no proper reasons tendered for the delay. The court further noted that the subject property had been subdivided and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 2321 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mourice Maina L. Muhanga; Plaintiff: Marcella Liposhe Ikanzu; Defendant: Mufoyongo M. Muhanga (Deceased); Defendant: Regina Mufoyongo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 156 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Substitution and Revival of Suit
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Substitution of Parties, Revival of Suit, Delay in Application, Legal Representatives, Title Subdivision
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Substitution of Parties Revival of Suit Delay in Application Legal Representatives Title Subdivision

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mourice Maina L. Muhanga

Plaintiff

Marcella Liposhe Ikanzu

Plaintiff

Mufoyongo M. Muhanga (Deceased)

Defendant

Regina Mufoyongo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Substitution and Revival of Suit

  1. 1 Whether the period for substitution of the deceased defendant should be extended and the suit revived.
  2. 2 Whether Regina Mufoyongo should be substituted as the legal representative of the deceased defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in bringing the application for substitution and revival is justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the respondent was the legal representative of the deceased defendant, the applicants delayed inordinately in bringing the application for substitution and revival, with no proper reasons tendered for the delay. The court further noted that the subject property had been subdivided and registered in new names before the suit was filed, and that not all necessary parties had been joined. The delay and procedural lapses amounted to an abuse of court process. Consequently, the application lacked merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for extension of time to substitute the deceased defendant and revive the suit is dismissed with costs.