Muchai v Makeri & another
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to substitute a deceased plaintiff because the family never asked to revive the abated suit first.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether substitution of the deceased plaintiff's legal representative could be granted where the suit had abated
The application was unmerited because the suit abated by operation of law and the Applicant never sought revival, which is the proper route
The court found from the death certificate and grant that the plaintiff died on March 10, 2021, so the suit abated on March 10, 2022. The substitution application was filed about 8 months after abatement without seeking revival under Order 24 rule 7(2). Relying on Court of Appeal authority, an abated suit ceases to exist and can only be resurrected through revival upon sufficient cause being shown.
Legal principles established
#- A suit abates by operation of law one year after a sole plaintiff's death where no application for substitution of the legal representative is made; an abated suit must be revived before substitution can be granted
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated November 1, 2022 is dismissed with costs to the 2nd Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 24 rules 1, 2 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules (substitution and revival of abated suits)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muchai v Makeri & another", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 702 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/19969/eng@2023-09-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.