[2025] KECPT 369 (KLR)

[2025] KECPT 369 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the Applicants had been granted multiple opportunities to substitute the deceased claimant but failed to act within the statutory period or provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Tribunal held that the reasons advanced, including the size of the family and the need to obtain a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KECPT 369 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Nduuti Ndaka & Munee Ndaka; Respondent: Agnes Mwelu Muoki; Respondent: Nathan Mukundi Muoki (Legal Representative of the Estate of Peter Muoki Ndaka - Deceased); Interested Party: Konza Ranching & Farming Co-operative Society Limited
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 234 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Substitution and Revival of Claim
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
Legal Topics
Substitution of Parties, Abatement of Suit, Nominee Rights in Cooperative Societies, Revival of Claim, Succession and Estate Administration
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Substitution of Parties Abatement of Suit Nominee Rights in Cooperative Societies Revival of Claim Succession and Estate Administration

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nduuti Ndaka & Munee Ndaka

Applicant

Agnes Mwelu Muoki

Respondent

Nathan Mukundi Muoki (Legal Representative of the Estate of Peter Muoki Ndaka - Deceased)

Respondent

Konza Ranching & Farming Co-operative Society Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Substitution and Revival of Claim

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal can extend the time limited in law and allow substitution of the Claimants.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal can order for the revival of the Claim.
  3. 3 Who should bear the cost of this Application.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Applicants had been granted multiple opportunities to substitute the deceased claimant but failed to act within the statutory period or provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Tribunal held that the reasons advanced, including the size of the family and the need to obtain a grant of representation, were not persuasive, as a limited grant ad litem could have been obtained expeditiously for the purpose of substitution. The Tribunal emphasized that the law on abatement is clear: if no application for substitution is made within one year of the claimant's death, the suit abates. Further, the Tribunal found that the nomination of Peter Muoki Ndaka as...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Prayer No. 1 – spent.
  • Prayer No. 2 – dismissed.