Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Case filed 16/2/2012 (amended 3/8/2012)· [2018] KEELC 4624 (KLR)

Muriithi Ngwenya v Gikonyo Macharia Mwangi & 2 others [2018] KEELC 4624 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
31 January 2018
1,736 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to replace a deceased defendant because the applicant had no grant of representation, missed the one-year deadline, and never served the intended substitute.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff sued the Defendants on 16/2/2012 (amended 3/8/2012) seeking a declaration that the 1st and 2nd Defendants hold 4.4 acres of land parcel LOC 14/KAIRO/2069 in trust for him and an order for transfer, or alternatively transfer of parcels LOC.14/KAIRO/20170 and LOC.14/KAIRO/2071, plus a permanent injunction against interference with his occupation. The 1st Defendant died on 18/3/2012, a month after suit was filed, without entering appearance. The Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion dated 10/4/13 seeking substitution of the deceased 1st Defendant with Lucy Wambui Gikonyo, his wife of over 50 years. The 2nd Defendant opposed, arguing that substitution requires letters of grant of administration and that the intended substitute must be notified. The Court applied Order 24 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, holding that only a person clothed with a grant of representation under the Law of Succession Act may be substituted, and that where dependants are unwilling, the Applicant may pursue citation and a limited grant under paragraph 14 of the Fifth Schedule. The Court further held that the suit abated against the deceased Defendant on 17/3/13 because no substitution application was made within one year; substitution before revival under Order 24 rule 7(2) would be a nullity. The intended substitute was also never served, offending Article 50 and Order 51 rule 3. The application was dismissed with costs to the 2nd Defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether substitution of a deceased defendant is permissible without a grant of representation

Holding

Substitution can only be of a party clothed with legal representation; the intended substitute must obtain a grant, potentially a limited grant under paragraph 14 of the Fifth Schedule to the Law of Succession Act, or be cited.

Reasoning

Order 24 rule 4 requires the legal representative of a deceased defendant to be made a party. Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act defines a legal representative as one who in law represents the estate. The intended substitute was described only as the deceased's wife of over 50 years, with no evidence of a grant or citation proceedings, so she could not be substituted.

p. 2
02

Whether the suit had abated by operation of law

Holding

The 1st Defendant died on 18/3/2012 and the substitution application was filed on 5/5/14, over two years later, so the suit abated against the deceased Defendant on 17/3/13 and substitution could not be ordered before revival under Order 24 rule 7(2).

Reasoning

Order 24 rule 4(3) provides that where no application is made within one year, the suit abates against the deceased Defendant. Relying on Kenya Farmers' Cooperative Union Ltd v. Charles Murgor, a court has no jurisdiction to order substitution in an abated suit; revival must precede substitution.

p. 3
03

Service of the substitution application on the intended substitute

Holding

Failure to serve the intended substitute offended natural justice under Article 50 and Order 51 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Reasoning

Order 51 rule 3 requires every person affected by an application to be served. There was no material on record showing service on the intended substitute, Lucy Wambui Gikonyo, so the application also failed on this independent ground.

p. 3
04

Jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over succession matters

Holding

The Court lacks jurisdiction over succession matters; its jurisdiction is limited to environment and land disputes under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution.

Reasoning

While the Succession Act provides a cure for the Applicant's frustration through citation and limited grants, the Court itself cannot determine succession matters, being limited to disputes on environment, use, occupation and title to land.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Substitution of a deceased defendant requires a legal representative clothed with a grant under the Law of Succession Act; where parties are unwilling, a limited grant under the Fifth Schedule may be sought by citation.
  • A suit abates against a deceased defendant if no substitution application is made within one year, and no substitution may be ordered until the abated suit is revived.
  • Every person affected by an application must be served under Order 51 rule 3, consistent with natural justice under Article 50 of the Constitution.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 10/4/13 seeking substitution of the 1st Defendant is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent (2nd Defendant)

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 24 rule 4
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 24 rule 7(2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 rule 3
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 2
  • Law of Succession ActSection 54; Fifth Schedule paragraph 14
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 162(2)(b); Article 50
  • Environment & Land Act

Cases cited (2)

  • Registered Trustees of Ruiru Sports Club & 3 Others vs. Isaac Karuri Nyongo & 15 Others
    (2014) EKLR
  • Kenya Farmers' Cooperative Union Ltd. Vs. Charles Murgor (deceased) t/a Kiptabei Coffee Estate
    (2005) Eklr
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and the Environment & Land Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muriithi Ngwenya v Gikonyo Macharia Mwangi & 2 others [2018] KEELC 4624 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). ELC Case filed 16/2/2012 (amended 3/8/2012). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/4624/eng@2018-01-31

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