[2020] KEELC 2888 (KLR)
The court held that it is not permissible to institute a suit against persons who were already dead at the time of filing. The existence of death certificates for all defendants prior to the institution of the suit rendered the proceedings a nullity ab initio. The court found that the identity of the person swearing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 2888 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Yusuf Jaro Mohamed Achu; Plaintiff: Nazo Yarmohamed Achu; Plaintiff: Jamila Yarmohamed Achu (suing as the beneficiaries of the Estate of Yarmohamed Achu); Defendant: Solomon Nyambu; Defendant: Polycard Maghanga; Defendant: Mwakilemba Nyange
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 55 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Environment Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit
- Outcome
- suit struck out
- Legal Topics
- Eviction Proceedings, Capacity to Sue, Deceased Defendants, Striking Out Suit
- 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
Yusuf Jaro Mohamed Achu
Plaintiff
Nazo Yarmohamed Achu
Plaintiff
Jamila Yarmohamed Achu (suing as the beneficiaries of the Estate of Yarmohamed Achu)
Plaintiff
Solomon Nyambu
Defendant
Polycard Maghanga
Defendant
Mwakilemba Nyange
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a suit can be maintained against defendants who were already deceased at the time of filing.
- 2 Whether the supporting affidavit to the application was properly sworn.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it is not permissible to institute a suit against persons who were already dead at the time of filing. The existence of death certificates for all defendants prior to the institution of the suit rendered the proceedings a nullity ab initio. The court found that the identity of the person swearing the supporting affidavit was irrelevant to the core issue, which was the legal impossibility of suing deceased persons. Consequently, the suit was struck out as unsustainable.
Court Disposition
suit struck out
Orders
- The suit is struck out.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT
AT MOMBASA
ELC NO. 55 OF 2018
1. YUSUF JARO MOHAMED ACHU
2. NAZO YARMOHAMED ACHU
3. JAMILA YARMOHAMED ACHU(Suing as the beneficiariesof the
ESTATE OF YARMOHAMED ACHU................................PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
1. SOLOMON NYAMBU
2. POLYCARD MAGHANGA
3. MWAKILEMBA NYANGE.......................................DEFENDANTS
RULING
(Plaintiffs filing suit for eviction; emerging that all defendants were dead when the case was filed; suit struck out)
1. The application before me is that dated 20 March 2019 and it seeks orders that this suit be struck out as against the defendants for the reason that the suit was filed when the defendants were already dead. The application is opposed.
2. This suit was filed on 9 March 2018 against three defendants. In the suit, the plaintiff did describe the defendants as “male adults living and working for gain within Mombasa County.” In the suit, the plaintiffs sought orders to evict the defendants from the land described as Plot No. CR Division No. 36962 (Original No. 217/3) and for them to give vacant possession by removing their temporary Swahili houses erected on the land.
3. A Notice of Appointment of Advocate “under protest” was made by Mr. Nyange Sharia Advocate and thereafter this application was filed with Mr. Nyange himself swearing the supporting affidavit. He has annexed Certificates of Death showing that the 1st defendant died on 29 December 1988, the 2nd defendant on 27 March 2001, and the 3rd defendant 4 June 1978. He has pointed out that the named defendants cannot defend this suit.
4. Grounds of Opposition and a Replying Affidavit were filed to oppose the motion. It is argued that Mr. Nyange is not competent to swear the affidavit on behalf of deceased persons as the only person who is capable of swearing the affidavit is the administrator of the estate of the defendants. The replying affidavit, which is sworn by counsel for the plaintiffs further avers that a demand letter was sent and the same was replied to where an offer for a settlement was made.
5. I have considered the issues herein. I think to me it is irrelevant who has sworn the supporting affidavit to the application. What is important to me is the information that the defendants are dead and were dead by the time this suit was filed. Irrespective of whatever clever arguments the plaintiffs may make, one cannot escape the fact that this suit was filed against people who were long dead. It is not permissible for one to sue a dead person. In fact I find it interesting that the plaintiffs want orders of eviction and I wonder how they will go about such a suit.
6. I do not see the need of saying much in this application. It is obvious that the suit is unsustainable as it was filed against persons who were not alive.
7. This suit is struck out. I make no orders as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at MOMBASA this 5th day of March, 2020.
______________
MUNYAO SILA
JUDGE.
IN THE PRESENCE OF:
Mr. Nyange for the applicant.
Mr Bosire for the respondents.
Court Assistant; David Koitamet.