Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 5th October 2016 (suit over LR No. Dagoretti/Waithaka/508)· [2018] KEELC 2542 (KLR)

Joseph Kibiru Mbatia v Gicheru Mbatia & 4 others [2018] KEELC 2542 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 June 2018
815 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court revived a land suit against a deceased defendant, but said only the High Court's Family Division can force a family to take out letters of administration.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, brother of the deceased first defendant Gicheru Mbatia, sued claiming that the deceased held half of LR No. Dagoretti/Waithaka/508 in trust for him and had sold a portion to the second defendant to defraud him of his share. The deceased died in 2015 while the suit was pending, and the suit against him abated. The applicant then filed a Notice of Motion dated 5th October 2016 seeking revival of the suit, an order compelling the deceased's widow and children to take out letters of administration, and their subsequent joinder as representatives of the estate. The respondents filed no replying affidavit or submissions, and the court treated the application as undefended. The court framed three issues: revival of the abated suit, compulsion of the family to take out letters of administration, and their joinder. Applying Order 24 Rule 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court found the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause - the family's unwillingness to take out grants, which would expose them to suit, and the registry's refusal to accept his own application without a chief's letter. Prayer (1) for revival and extension of time was allowed. However, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to compel the widow and children to take out letters of administration, that power resting with the Family Division of the High Court, and accordingly declined prayers (2) and (3). Costs were made costs in the suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the abated suit against the deceased should be revived

Holding

Revival granted; the applicant showed sufficient cause - the widow and children refused to take out letters and the registry rejected his own application for want of a chief's letter

Reasoning

Order 24 Rule 7(2) requires proof of sufficient cause preventing continuation of the suit. The applicant's uncontroverted affidavit showed the deceased died in 2015, the family declined to take out letters of administration, and his own attempt failed because the registry required a chief's letter which the chief refused as he was not a beneficiary. Lack of a legal representative of the deceased defendant constituted sufficient cause.

p. 1
02

Whether the court can compel the deceased's widow and children to take out letters of administration and enjoin them as representatives

Holding

Declined for want of jurisdiction; the remedy lies in the Family Division of the High Court

Reasoning

The court held that compelling the widow and children to take out letters of administration is a succession matter reserved for the Family Division of the High Court. Having declined prayer (2), the court also declined prayer (3) seeking their joinder as representatives, since it was dependent on the grant being obtained.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A suit that has abated against a deceased defendant may be revived where the plaintiff proves sufficient cause for not proceeding, under Order 24 Rule 7(2)
  • An Environment and Land Court has no jurisdiction to compel persons to take out letters of administration; that power rests with the Family Division of the High Court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Prayer (1) of the Notice of Motion dated 5th October 2016 allowed - revival of the suit against the deceased and extension of time
  2. 2.Costs of the application to be costs in the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 24 Rule 7(2)
Jurisdiction invoked
Civil Procedure Rules, Order 24 Rule 7(2)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joseph Kibiru Mbatia v Gicheru Mbatia & 4 others [2018] KEELC 2542 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Notice of Motion dated 5th October 2016 (suit over LR No. Dagoretti/Waithaka/508). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2542/eng@2018-06-28

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