Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 20th September 2024 (Amended Amended Petition dated 20th May 2022)· [2025] KEELRC 380 (KLR)

Elpa & 212 others v Majani Mingi Group of Companies Limited; Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Petition 18 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 380 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
14 February 2025
2,342 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court allowed family representatives to take over a lawsuit after two petitioners died, prioritising justice over procedural delays.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 20th September 2024 by the 6th and 11th Petitioners/Applicants, who sought leave to revive their claims in the Amended Amended Petition after the original Petitioners, Joseph Atulo Abwabo and Julius Mukiria Kamau, died on 13th September 2023 and 14th May 2022 respectively. The Applicants, holding letters of administration ad litem issued in Nakuru High Court Succession Causes Nos. E137 and E138 of 2024, sought extension of time and substitution of the deceased on the record. The Respondent opposed, arguing the claims had abated one year after the deaths, that the delay was unexplained and inordinate, and that the application was an abuse of process. Both sides filed written submissions; the Applicants invoked Order 24 Rules 3 and 7 and authorities on 'sufficient cause', while the Respondent stressed the burden of proof on the Applicants. The court, per Mwaure J, identified a single issue: whether the application was merited. Applying Rebecca Mijide Mungole and Said Sweilem Gheithan Saanum, it noted the Applicants had not explained the delay in obtaining the letters of administration but had filed the application immediately upon receiving them on 19th September 2024. Balancing the interests of justice, and observing that the suit had not been heard at all, the court allowed prayers 2, 3 and 4, directed the substituted Petitioners to file an amended petition within 14 days, set mention for 5th March 2025, and ordered costs to be in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application for revival and substitution is merited

Holding

The court found the applicants did not explain the delay in obtaining the letters of administration ad litem, but allowed the application in the interest of justice, noting the suit had not been heard either partially or fully and that substitution was fair.

Reasoning

The court applied Order 24 Rules 3 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which require an application within one year of a plaintiff's death unless the court extends time for good reason. While the applicants failed to explain the delay in obtaining the letters of administration ad litem, they filed the application immediately upon receiving them on 19th September 2024. Balancing this against the overriding objective and the fact that the petition had not been heard, the court found it just to extend justice to the deceased families and allow substitution.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a sole plaintiff dies and the cause of action survives, the suit abates unless an application is made within one year of death, but may be revived on proof of sufficient cause
  • A party applying to revive an abated suit must show sufficient cause for the delay in continuing the suit

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to revive the claims of the 6th and 11th Petitioners and time for substitution extended (prayer 2)
  2. 2.Leave granted for Mwanahawa Tekete Atulo and Julius Kariuki Mukiria to substitute the deceased Petitioners (prayer 3)
  3. 3.Leave granted to make such filings and amendments as necessary to effect the substitution on the record (prayer 4)
  4. 4.Petitioners 6 and 11 to file their amended petition within 14 days
  5. 5.Mention of the case on 5th March 2025 for further directions

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 24 Rule 3
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 24 Rule 7
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Evidence ActSections 107, 108 and 109
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)Section 1B

Cases cited (7)

  • Said Sweilem Gheithan Saanum V Commissioner of Lands (being sued through Attorney General) & 5 others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Cosmas Kanja Mbuteti (Deceased) and another V Jackson Murage and 3 others
    [2021] eKLR
  • Attorney General V Law Society of Kenya & another
    [2013] eKLR
  • Joseph Gachuhi Muthanji V Mary Wambui Njunguna
    [2014] eKLR
  • Richard Nchapi Leiyagu V Independent Electoral Boundaries Commission & 2 Others
    [2013] KEHC 3100 (KLR)
  • Mohamed Guyo Boru V Richard Mwilaria Aritho
    [2022] eKLR
  • Rebecca Mijide Mungole and Another V Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd and 2 Others
    [2017] KECA 544 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction over revival of abated suits under Order 24 Rules 3 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Elpa & 212 others v Majani Mingi Group of Companies Limited; Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Petition 18 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 380 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 20th September 2024 (Amended Amended Petition dated 20th May 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/380/eng@2025-02-14

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