[2016] KEHC 8555 (KLR)
The court found that the application for abatement was untenable for two main reasons: first, a prior court order dated 12th May, 2015 had already addressed and declined a similar application, directing that the hearing proceed against the parties as sued; second, the cause of action in this suit survives and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 8555 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Richard Ndere Johnson Paul; Defendant: Housing Finance Company of Kenya; Defendant: Samuel Kahiga Muigai; Defendant: Cheri (K) Limited; Defendant: Commissioner of Lands
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 2095 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Abatement of Suit Against 2nd Defendant
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Abatement of Suit, Substitution of Parties, Death of Defendant
- 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
Richard Ndere Johnson Paul
Plaintiff
Housing Finance Company of Kenya
Defendant
Samuel Kahiga Muigai
Defendant
Cheri (K) Limited
Defendant
Commissioner of Lands
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Abatement of Suit Against 2nd Defendant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit against the 2nd Defendant has abated due to failure to substitute within the statutory period.
- 2 Whether the application for abatement is tenable in light of previous court orders and the nature of the cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for abatement was untenable for two main reasons: first, a prior court order dated 12th May, 2015 had already addressed and declined a similar application, directing that the hearing proceed against the parties as sued; second, the cause of action in this suit survives and continues against the estate of the 2nd Defendant as well as the other defendants. The court further noted that the 2nd Defendant's advocates remain on record and share the responsibility to apply for substitution. The application was also procedurally defective, being brought under a non-existent provision. Consequently, the Notice of Motion was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 29th June, 2016 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
COMMERCIAL & ADMIRALTY DIVISION
CIVIL SUIT NO. 2095 OF 2000
RICHARD NDERE JOHNSON PAUL……………..……………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
HOUSING FINANCE COMPANY OF KENYA..................1ST DEFENDANT
SAMUEL KAHIGA MUIGAI……………...….………….2ND DEFENDANT
CHERI (K) LIMITED………………..……………………3RD DEFENDANT
COMMISSIONER OF LANDS……………………..……4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The Notice of Motion dated 29th January, 2016 was filed pursuant to Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya, as read with Order 24 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, for a declaratory order to the effect that suit as against the 2nd Defendant has abated. It was further prayed that the costs of the application be provided for.
2. The application is premised on the grounds, inter alia, that since no application to join and/or substitute the 2nd Defendant had been filed with the one year period stipulated under Order 24 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the suit has abated as against the 2nd Defendant, for which reason Counsel for the 2nd Defendant was under no obligation to attend the hearing of the suit scheduled for 11th July, 2016.
3. So far, there is no response to the application. Accordingly, the Court was urged to allow the application and grant orders as prayed therein.
4. I have perused and considered the grounds upon which the application is predicated as supported by the affidavit of Kevin Wakwaya, Counsel for the 2nd Defendant/Applicant. I have also perused the pleadings on record and the proceedings to date and note that this is a fairly old matter. It is further noted that this is not the first time the issue of abatement of the suit as against the 2nd Defendant is being raised. Indeed, on the 12th May, 2015 the Court expressed itself on the issue as follows:
“On the 20th June, 2014 the issue of the death of the 2nd Defendant was raised having been raised on 6th May, 2014. On 20th June, 2014 the Court directed that the matter proceed as the Plaintiff has the liberty to proceed against parties he has sued. Indeed on 17th December, 2014 the Court gave a hearing date of 2nd April, 2015 but the matter did not proceed as the High Court of Kenya was not sitting on that day. The 2nd Defendant’s advocates have had ample time to seek instructions. As the Plaintiff cannot be held hostage by the inaction of the 2nd Defendant’s advocates, I hereby direct that the hearing in this matter will proceed…”
5. It was therefore mischievous for Counsel for the 2nd Defendant to come back to Court while those orders are still in place to seek the same intervention that the Court declined on 12th May, 2015. If counsel has no instructions to continue acting herein for the 2nd Defendant then their option would be to seek leave to withdraw from so acting.
6. I note too that the instant application is expressed to have been brought under Order 24 Rule 4(4) Civil Procedure Rules. There is in fact no such provision. Be that as it may, Order 24 Rule 4 sub-rules (1) and (3) provide that:
“(1) Where one of two or more defendants dies and the cause of action does not survive or continue against the surviving defendant or defendants alone…the Court on an application made in that behalf shall cause the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit.
(3) Where within one year no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant.”(Emphasis added)
7. It is plain therefore that the application is untenable, not only on account of the Court order of 12th May, 2015 but also because the cause of action, from its very nature, subsists and continues against not only the surviving Defendants, but also against the 2nd Defendant's estate. Secondly, the 2nd Defendant’s advocates are still on record and share the responsibility, as officers of the court, to apply for the substitution of the 2nd Defendant.
8. On account of the foregoing, it is my resultant finding that the Notice of Motion dated 29th June, 2016 is completely lacking in merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016
OLGA SEWE
JUDGE