Sendi & 2 others v Machera (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 566 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 4793 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Migori court revived a land case that had automatically died after the defendant passed away, because the family had no administrator for over two years.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether M/S Abisai & Company Advocates were properly on record for the Respondent
The firm is properly on record; the holder of a limited grant ad litem is entitled to representation even before formal substitution.
The Court held it would be illogical to deny the Estate representation on an application whose very object determines whether the estate is drawn back into litigation, particularly where the Court had already recognised the grant holder's standing by hearing and allowing her earlier application. Sustaining the objection would leave the Estate unrepresented and unheard, contrary to natural justice.
Whether the Applicants demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time, revival and substitution
Yes; the suit abated on 8th January 2023 but the Applicants explained each period of delay, and the estate lacked an administrator for the first two periods.
The Court analysed the delay period by period per Salat. The roughly 26 months before an administrator was granted were attributable to the practical realities of obtaining a grant and were beyond the Applicants' control. Subsequent periods reflected diligent engagement, and the final eight months were spent reformulating the application to seek revival first, in compliance with the Court's earlier guidance. No specific prejudice to the Estate was demonstrated.
Whether a rigid time limit governs revival of an abated suit
No statutory limit exists; the Court proposed 12 years from abatement as an outer benchmark and urged appellate guidance.
Order 24 does not fix a limitation period for revival. Courts have used a six-year benchmark by analogy to contract claims, but the Court found the choice of the contractual period unreasoned. By analogy to Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act, which bars execution of decrees after twelve years, the Court proposed twelve years from abatement as the outer limit and invited the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court to give guidance.
Legal principles established
#- Abatement under Order 24 Rule 4(3) is self-executing and automatic upon lapse of one year from death; substitution after abatement requires prior revival of the suit.
- An abated suit has no party against whom steps can be taken until revived.
- The Court proposes an outer limit of 12 years from abatement (13 years from death) for entertaining revival applications, by analogy to Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act.
- A legal representative ad litem holding a limited grant is entitled to legal representation even before formal substitution.
Court orders
#- 1.Time of abatement extended for the Applicants to substitute the deceased Defendant with his legal representative, and the suit deemed as subsisting
- 2.The suit which abated against the deceased Defendant Robi Mwita Machera on 8th January 2023 revived
- 3.The deceased Defendant substituted by his legal representative SOFIA MOGOSI GIBOMA, substitution to be done within fourteen (14) days
- 4.The suit reopened, further hearing to proceed upon directions on 29th October 2026
- 5.Each party to bear its own costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 24 Rules 4 and 7, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sendi & 2 others v Machera (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 566 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 4793 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC 566 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4793/eng@2026-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.