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 in the judgment· [2023] KEELC 935 (KLR)

Odhiambo v Onunda & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal 19 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 935 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
21 February 2023
GOG.M.A Ong'ondo
219 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

#

Kenya's High Court allowed an unopposed request to replace a deceased party with a substitute so an ongoing appeal could continue, with no costs ordered.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a short ruling on a Notice of Motion dated February 2, 2023, filed on February 8, 2023 by Peter Opiyo Odhiambo, appearing in person, in an appeal pending before the High Court at Homa Bay. The applicant sought three orders: first, that he be substituted for the respondent, Joseph Odhiambo Rabita, who was deceased, for purposes of defending the appeal to its conclusion; secondly, that upon that substitution being granted, he be allowed to act in person; and thirdly, that there be no orders as to costs. The application was wholly unopposed. Mr Robert Ochieng, instructed by the firm of G.S Okoth and Company Advocates, appearing for the deceased respondent, had no objection to the application in its entirety. Ms Aluoch Odera, for the appellants/respondents, likewise had no objection to the orders sought. The court, per G.M.A Ong'ondo J, found the application meritorious on the strength of that lack of opposition and allowed it in terms of all three prayers as sought. The court accordingly ordered the substitution, permitted the applicant to act in person, and directed that there be no orders as to costs. The judgment is dated and was delivered at Homa Bay on February 21, 2023. It contains no citation of authorities or statutory provisions.

Key legal issues

#
01

Substitution of a deceased respondent in a pending appeal

Holding

The application for substitution was allowed as it was unopposed by all counsel appearing, and the applicant was permitted to act in person with no order as to costs.

Reasoning

The applicant filed a Notice of Motion seeking substitution for the deceased respondent for purposes of defending the appeal. Counsel for the deceased respondent's firm and counsel for the appellants/respondents both raised no objection to the application in its entirety. In the absence of opposition, the court found the application meritorious and allowed it in the terms of all three prayers sought, directing that there be no orders as to costs.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.The applicant, Peter Opiyo Odhiambo, substituted for the deceased respondent, Joseph Odhiambo Rabita, for purposes of defending the appeal to its conclusion
    2. 2.The applicant allowed to act in person
    3. 3.No orders as to costs
    Jurisdiction invoked
    Inherent powers of the High Court in respect of an appeal pending before it (substitution of a deceased party); no specific provision cited

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Odhiambo v Onunda & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal 19 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 935 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/935/eng@2023-02-21

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