[2010] KEHC 3704 (KLR)
The court found that although the application for substitution was made within the prescribed time, the persons who sought to be substituted as plaintiffs lacked the necessary capacity as they had not obtained a limited grant or letters of administration. The court held that only a legal representative duly...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 3704 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Wilson Wanzala Oswaro substituted by George Oswaro & David Wanzala Oswaro; Defendant: Honorat Okoit Oswaro
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 22 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Costs After Abatement
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Suit declared abated. Costs awarded to defendant from the estate of the deceased.
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Abatement of Suit, Substitution of Parties, Legal Representative Capacity
- 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
Wilson Wanzala Oswaro substituted by George Oswaro & David Wanzala Oswaro
Plaintiff
Honorat Okoit Oswaro
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Costs After Abatement
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the substitution of plaintiffs was valid without a limited grant or letters of administration.
- 2 Whether the suit abated for want of proper substitution within the prescribed period.
- 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to costs from the estate of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the application for substitution was made within the prescribed time, the persons who sought to be substituted as plaintiffs lacked the necessary capacity as they had not obtained a limited grant or letters of administration. The court held that only a legal representative duly appointed by a grant of representation can take over a suit on behalf of a deceased party. The absence of such authority rendered the substitution invalid, and any subsequent proceedings or evidence by the purported plaintiffs were inconsequential. Consequently, the suit was deemed to have abated for want of proper substitution, and the defendant was entitled to costs from the estate...
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Suit declared abated. Costs awarded to defendant from the estate of the deceased.
Orders
- The suit is declared abated for want of proper substitution.
- The defendant is awarded costs from the estate of the deceased as provided by rule 2.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BUSIA
Civil Suit 22 of 2005
WILSON WANZALA OSWARO Substituted by GEORGE OSWARO
& DAVID WANZALA OSWARO…...….PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
vs
HONORAT OKOIT OSWARO………….DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
RULING
This is a ruling on the Defendant’s application dated 7/06/2006. It seeks for costs of the suit in favour of the Defendant on grounds that the suit has abated. The grounds supporting the application are that the purported substitution made on 23/3/1995 was not consequential since the Applicants had no locus standi having not obtained a limited grant. It is only a legal representative of the deceased who can take over a case. The application was opposed on grounds that the substitution was done within one (1) year provided by the law. The persons who took over the suit as Plaintiffs have already testified in court. The Applicants are therefore stopped from bringing this application. The Respondents argue that it is not clear whether the application is brought in way of review or appeal.
The application does not seek to review any orders of the court. If so, it would have been brought under Order XLIV rule 1. Neither is it an appeal against the orders of substitution . It is brought under Order XXIII which deals with death of parties to a suit. Rule 3 provides that where one Plaintiff, his legal representative shall replace him as a party and the suit shall proceed. In this case, the capacity of George Oswaro and David Wanzala Oswaro as Plaintiffs to take over the suit of their deceased father is challenged. I have perused the application for substitution dated 23/01/95. The only annexure to the application is the death certificate of deceased. If there was any limited grant or letters of administration issued in the favour of the Applicants, then it was not annexed. That document gives authority to the person appointed as legal representative of deceased to take over a pending civil case. In this application, the respondent would have annexed such authority if he had any to his replying affidavit. The application for substitution was done well within time, but by people who lacked capacity. The court must have acted in an oversight to grant the orders sought. The lack of capacity is a matter of serious nature and any orders granted by the court may be challenged. The Applicant herein did not ask the court to review or set aside the orders granted. However, the court may on its own motion declare the orders made on 23/3/1995 non consequential for want of capacity. The suit herein must be taken to have abated for want of substitution within the prescribed period. Any evidence adduced by the purported Plaintiffs herein after substitution is also consequential.
I hereby declare the said suit abated and order that the Defendant be paid costs from the estate of the deceased as provided for by rule 2. The application hereby succeeds.
F. N. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
Dated, Delivered and Signed at Busia this 2nd day of February 2010.
In the Absence of the parties.