Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedChamber Summons dated 8th August 2024· [2025] KEELC 7762 (KLR)

Aloka v Mukoyani; Aloka & 5 others (Subsequent Party); Sirengo & another (Applicant) (Environment and Land Case 254 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 7762 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
5 November 2025
1,211 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

#

The Environment and Land Court in Kakamega dismissed an attempt to substitute dead parties because the land suit had already been struck out as res judicata.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on a chamber summons dated 8th August 2024 in which Fredrick Wamalwa Sirengo and Banjamin Barasa Wafula, holding a limited grant ad litem for the estate of the deceased defendant, sought to substitute themselves for the deceased defendant, and to substitute the 1st to 5th alleged subsequent parties for the deceased plaintiff. They further sought the arrest of the subsequent parties for allegedly chasing them away, tearing the area chief's letter and refusing to attend a chief's arbitration meeting, and an order that the OCS Matete Police Station effect service. The subsequent parties opposed through grounds of objection, arguing there was no legal basis for 'subsequent parties', that no substitution of the plaintiff had occurred, and that the applicants held no substitution of the defendant. The sole issue was whether the applicants deserved the orders sought. Applying Order 24 Rules 1 to 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court held that substitution is available only where the cause of action survives a party's death. Since the suit had been struck out as res judicata on 24th July 2018, no suit and no surviving cause of action existed to warrant substitution of either deceased party. The alleged subsequent parties also held no grant of representation to the plaintiff's estate. The alleged contempt relied on dates on which no orders of the court were ever issued, most predating the suit; any orders referenced appeared to belong to a probate court over which this court has no jurisdiction. No legal provision permitted service by a police officer. The court dismissed the application with costs to the listed subsequent parties.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether substitution of deceased plaintiff and defendant could be ordered

Holding

Substitution was refused because the suit had already been struck out as res judicata, so no cause of action survived

Reasoning

Order 24 Rules 1-4 permit substitution only where the cause of action survives a party's death. Here the suit was struck out on 24th July 2018 as res judicata. With no live suit, there was no surviving cause of action, no basis for joining the applicants as substitutes for the deceased defendant, and no basis for joining the subsequent parties as substitutes for the deceased plaintiff, who also had no grant of representation.

p. 3
02

Whether contempt and arrest orders could issue against the subsequent parties

Holding

Refused; no subsisting orders of the court existed to be breached

Reasoning

The dates the applicants relied on as dates of alleged court orders were dates when no orders were ever issued in the case, most predating the filing of the suit. Any orders referred to were said to be from the Probate Court, over which this court has no jurisdiction. With no positive order in existence, there was no contempt and no basis to arrest anyone.

p. 3
03

Whether the OCS Matete Police Station could be directed to effect service

Holding

Refused; no legal provision sanctioned police service in these circumstances

Reasoning

The applicants asked the court to direct police to effect service, claiming the village elder and they themselves had been chased away by the subsequent parties. The court found no legal provision authorising service of court process by a police officer in such circumstances, and the request therefore failed.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A court has power to substitute a deceased party where the cause of action survives death, by joining the personal representative of the estate
  • Where a suit has been struck out, no cause of action survives to warrant substitution of a deceased party

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the chamber summons dated 8th August 2024 with costs to the listed subsequent parties
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; application brought under Order 24 Rules 1 to 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Aloka v Mukoyani; Aloka & 5 others (Subsequent Party); Sirengo & another (Applicant) (Environment and Land Case 254 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 7762 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 8th August 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7762/eng@2025-11-05

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