Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated (Application dated March 29, 2022)· [2023] KEELC 566 (KLR)

Catherine Muthoni Nabea & Another v Respondent

Environment and Land Court
8 February 2023
CYC.K Yano
1,154 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Meru (C.K Yano, ELC Judge) determined an application dated March 29, 2022 filed by the daughters of the original plaintiff, M'emenchu M'akwaru, who died on 29th February 2010. The applicants sought revival of a land suit instituted on August 6, 1997, which had abated, and their substitution as plaintiffs in place of the deceased plaintiff, invoking Order 24 Rules 1, 3 and 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The suit had originally been taken over by the plaintiff's widow, Julia Ntheru George, who also died; the suit was subsequently marked as abated. The applicants deposed that they were unaware of the suit's existence until February 2022, when they received a call from the office of M/s Maitai Rimita & Co. Advocates, and that they held Letters of Administration Intestate issued on August 16, 2015 in Meru HC Succession Cause No 826 of 2015. The application, heard on November 18, 2022, was unopposed - counsel for the respondent informed the court it could be allowed. The court held that Order 24 confers discretion to extend time and revive an abated suit where sufficient cause is shown. Finding that the applicants' lack of knowledge of the suit until February 2022 constituted sufficient cause, and noting the respondent's non-opposition, the judge exercised discretion in their favour and allowed the application as prayed on February 8, 2023.

Key legal issues

#
01

Revival of an abated suit and substitution of the deceased plaintiff's legal representatives

Holding

Sufficient cause was shown where the applicants had no knowledge of the suit until February 2022, and the discretion was exercised in their favour, the application being unopposed

Reasoning

Order 24 permits revival of an abated suit if the person claiming to be the legal representative was prevented by sufficient cause from continuing the suit. The applicants, daughters of the original plaintiff holding letters of administration, only learnt of the suit in February 2022 from the former advocates. The suit had abated in 2018 and the application was filed in April 2022. The court found their lack of knowledge constituted sufficient cause, and the respondent did not oppose the application.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The court has discretion to extend time for substitution and revive an abated suit where sufficient cause is shown

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated March 29, 2022 is allowed as prayed
  2. 2.The suit is revived and the applicants substituted as plaintiffs in place of the deceased plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 24 Rules 1, 3, 7(2)
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 24 Rules 1, 3, 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Catherine Muthoni Nabea & Another v Respondent", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated (Application dated March 29, 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/566/eng@2023-02-08

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