[2006] KEHC 360 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 360 (KLR)

The court held that the suit had been dismissed for non-attendance on 23rd September 1997 and, although an order for reinstatement was made on 2nd October 2000, that order was a nullity as it was made when both the defendant and the 2nd plaintiff were already deceased and had not been substituted. There was no suit...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] KEHC 360 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Vincent Okwiry Akumu; Plaintiff: Risper Anyango Otwala; Defendant: Paskalia Awuor Omondi; Applicant: John Ogina Otwala; Respondent: John Odhiambo Leo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 178 of 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Revive Suit, Substitution of Parties, Amendment of Plaint, and Injunction
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
K Bauni
Legal Topics
Revival of Abated Suit, Substitution of Parties, Dismissal for Non Attendance, Amendment of Pleadings, Injunctions, Adverse Possession
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Revival of Abated Suit Substitution of Parties Dismissal for Non Attendance Amendment of Pleadings Injunctions Adverse Possession

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vincent Okwiry Akumu

Plaintiff

Risper Anyango Otwala

Plaintiff

Paskalia Awuor Omondi

Defendant

John Ogina Otwala

Applicant

John Odhiambo Leo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Revive Suit, Substitution of Parties, Amendment of Plaint, and Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the suit had abated or was dismissed and could be revived.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had locus standi to seek revival and substitution before being joined as a party.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in bringing the application for revival and substitution was excusable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the suit had been dismissed for non-attendance on 23rd September 1997 and, although an order for reinstatement was made on 2nd October 2000, that order was a nullity as it was made when both the defendant and the 2nd plaintiff were already deceased and had not been substituted. There was no suit alive to abate when the 2nd plaintiff died, and the order of dismissal remained in force. The applicant, not being a party to the suit, lacked locus standi to seek revival, substitution, amendment of the plaint, or injunctive relief. The delay of almost six years in bringing the application was inordinate and unexplained. The court found the application to be without merit and...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application to revive the suit is dismissed.
  • The application for substitution of parties is dismissed.