[2023] KEELC 15830 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 15830 (KLR)

The court held that the application for substitution was filed well beyond the one-year period prescribed by Order 24 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules following the death of the 2nd Defendant. No application for revival of the suit had been made, and there was no order on record reviving the abated suit. As a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 15830 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jacob Joseph Wambaya (in his own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of Esperance Perside Wambaya); Respondent: Francisca Awuor; Respondent: Roda Jebiama Karan (deceased) / James Kosgei (proposed substitution); Respondent: Kipkeny Arap Abwao; Respondent: Esther Achieng Musumba
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 698 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Substitution Application
Outcome
application for substitution struck out; preliminary objection upheld
Judges
E Asati
Legal Topics
Substitution of Parties, Abatement of Suit, Limitation Periods, Letters of Administration
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Substitution of Parties Abatement of Suit Limitation Periods Letters of 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

Jacob Joseph Wambaya (in his own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of Esperance Perside Wambaya)

Applicant

Francisca Awuor

Respondent

Roda Jebiama Karan (deceased) / James Kosgei (proposed substitution)

Respondent

Kipkeny Arap Abwao

Respondent

Esther Achieng Musumba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Substitution Application

  1. 1 Whether the application for substitution of the deceased 2nd Defendant was made within the time prescribed by law.
  2. 2 Whether the suit against the deceased 2nd Defendant had abated by operation of law.
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to allow substitution where the suit has already abated.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application for substitution was filed well beyond the one-year period prescribed by Order 24 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules following the death of the 2nd Defendant. No application for revival of the suit had been made, and there was no order on record reviving the abated suit. As a result, the suit against the 2nd Defendant had abated by operation of law, rendering the application for substitution futile. The court therefore upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the application for substitution, awarding costs to the intended 2nd Defendant.

Court Disposition

application for substitution struck out; preliminary objection upheld

Orders

  • The application dated 26th July 2021 is struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the intended 2nd Defendant, James Kosgei.