Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2018] KEELC 2017 (KLR)

James Muchiri Mukoma v James Nderitu [2018] KEELC 2017 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
20 July 2018
SMS.N. Mukunya
205 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant sought an order extending time in an ongoing suit, together with further directions to substitute the defendant, who was deceased. In the alternative, the applicant sought an order compelling the defendant's wife to substitute the deceased in the matter. The application was opposed through grounds of opposition filed under Order 51 Rule 14(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010. The defendant's counsel argued that the suit had abated on 16th November 2012, being one year after the defendant's demise, and that no application had been made to revive it under Order 24 Rule 3(2). The court noted that this fact was not denied or controverted by the applicant. Holding that a suit which abates ceases to exist, the judge reasoned that there was no live case in which time could be extended, directions could be given, or any order compelling a person to act could issue. Consequently, the application was dismissed for want of merit, with costs awarded to the defendant. Judgment was delivered by S.N. Mukunya, Judge, on 20th July 2018. The judgment is brief and rests entirely on the doctrine of abatement of suits following the death of a party and the absence of any revival application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Effect of abatement of a suit on the court's power to extend time or order substitution

Holding

The suit abated on 16th November 2012, one year after the defendant's death, and no application to revive it under Order 24 Rule 3(2) was made; consequently the application could not be entertained.

Reasoning

The defendant's counsel argued the suit abated one year after the defendant's death. This fact was not controverted by the applicant. Since there was no application to revive the suit under Order 24 Rule 3(2), the suit remained abated. An abated suit ceases to exist, leaving the court with no live matter in which to extend time, give directions or compel substitution. The application was therefore without merit and was dismissed with costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Once a suit abates, it ceases to exist and no orders, including extension of time or directions for substitution, can be granted in it.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is dismissed for being without merit
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the defendant
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the court to extend time and give directions under the Civil Procedure Rules (Order 51 Rule 14(1) and Order 24 cited)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "James Muchiri Mukoma v James Nderitu [2018] KEELC 2017 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2017/eng@2018-07-20

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.