Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELC 2981 (KLR)

Kori v Kirui & another (Environment & Land Case 476 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 2981 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 March 2025
AOAntony O. Ombwayo
488 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court struck out a contempt application because the person who filed it was not a party to the case and had no authority to act for the deceased original plaintiff.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Boaz Kiprotich Ngetich, described by the court as a person not known in the matter and not a party, brought an application for contempt seeking the immediate arrest of Alice Kirui, John Kirui and PC Henry Mitey, their citation and adjudgment as guilty of contempt of consent orders issued on 5th March 2018, their committal to six months' imprisonment each, and an order denying the 1st respondents audience until they purged the contempt. The application was supported by his affidavit and founded on the allegation that the contemnors disobeyed the order maintaining status quo over parcel Nakuru/Terete/117 by entering the property unlawfully and issuing threats. Alice Kirui replied that she did not know the applicant and that the supporting affidavit was defective because he was not a party to the suit. Justice Antony O. Ombwayo noted that the plaintiff died on 13th June 2024, after the consent order was recorded, and that the deceased plaintiff had not been substituted. The court held that no proceedings can be undertaken before substitution, and that the applicant, being a stranger to the suit, lacked capacity to sue on behalf of the deceased. The application was therefore held incompetent and struck out with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Capacity of a stranger to the suit to prosecute contempt proceedings for a deceased party

Holding

The application is incompetent because the applicant is not a party and lacks capacity to sue on behalf of the deceased plaintiff

Reasoning

The plaintiff died on 13th June 2024 after the consent order of 5th March 2018 was recorded. The deceased was never substituted, and the court held that no proceedings can be undertaken before substitution. Since Boaz Kiprotich Ngetich is not a party to the suit, he could not sue on behalf of the deceased, so the contempt application was incompetent and was struck out with costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • No proceedings can be undertaken on behalf of a deceased plaintiff before substitution of the deceased

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for contempt is struck out with costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Contempt jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court in respect of orders issued on 5th March 2018 in the underlying suit (specific statutory provision not cited)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kori v Kirui & another (Environment & Land Case 476 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 2981 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/2981/eng@2025-03-28

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