Mutisya & another (Suing as the Administrators Ad litem of the Estate of Erastus Mwaka Munywoki) v Kilonzo & another (Miscellaneous Civil Application E293 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 13250 (KLR) (Civ) (30 July 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 13250 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION E293 OF 2025 SIFUNA NIXON, J JULY 30, 2025 BETWEEN SYOMITI MUNYWOKI MUTISYA ................................................. 1ST APPLICANT MUTUKU MUNYWOKI .................................................................. 2ND APPLICANT SUING AS THE ADMINISTRATORS AD LITEM OF THE ESTATE OF ERASTUS MWAKA MUNYWOKI AND DAMIAS WAMBUA KILONZO ................................................... 1ST RESPONDENT GEOFFREY MUTUA MULI ......................................................... 2ND RESPONDENT RULING 1. By this Application the Applicants are seeking leave to file suit out of time against the Respondents. The Application has been made under the provisions of Sections 27 and 28 of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22, Laws of Kenya). 2. The Application, which has been brought on behalf of the Estate of the Late Erastus Mwaka Munywoki and has been filed by the Applicants in their capacity as administrators ad litem of the said Estate. 3. The intended suit arises from a road traffic accident that occurred on or about 13th May 2018. In which the deceased died. 4. The Application which is supported by the Supporting Affidavit of Syomiti Munywoki Mutisya the 1st Applicant, is based on the grounds stated in it. The main ground being that the delay in filing the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/13250/eng@2025-07-30 1
page 1 of 2
suit is an excusable. That is all that the Application has in its grounds stated; without any explanation as to the length of the delay and the reasons for the delay. 5. The accident having occurred in May 2018, the three years period for filing the suit, lapsed in May 2021. Yet this Application was filed only in January 2025. Which is a delay of almost four years. That is an inordinate delay which even with Section 27 and 28 of the Limitation of Actions Act providing for an extension of time, delay has to be satisfactorily explained. 6. This is a legal requirement that can neither be ignored nor excused. More so in a case like this, where the Applicants are represented by an Advocate; and the Application and even its Supporting Affidavit were drawn by an Advocate. Advocates are experts in the law and the pleadings they draw, bind not only them, but their clients as well. There is the legal principle that a party is bound by its pleadings 7. For this Application, I find the delay is inexcusable as the Applicants have not even attempted to explain the delay or state reasons for it, or provide any logically persuading factors that may have led to it. It is silent on all these. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Application fails, and is hereby dismissed accordingly. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025. PROF (DR) NIXON SIFUNA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/13250/eng@2025-07-30 2
page 2 of 2