Tabitha Wanja Gatongu & 1 other v Jane Wacuka Muriuki & 2 others

1. That the original applicant Gatonga Mbuthia in the present application dated 11th March, 2019 is dead. 2. The applicants Tabitha Wanja Gatongu And Daniel Wamugunda Gatongu in the present appeal are the personal representatives of the deceased and were granted authority pursuant to a Limited grant of letters of Administration Ad Litem issued on 30th November, 2021 hence vested with authority to prosecute and defend the aforementioned application. 3. That this matter is an old file which was affected by the death of one of the Advocate in this matter and of the applicant Gatongu Mbuthia (deceased) coupled with the derail caused by pandemic of corona virus diseased 2019 (Covid 19). 4. That this matter has been forwarded by the Honourable Court to the Court annexed Mediation without the consent and or application of the parties therein or their Advocates on record forcing the Advocates on record forcing the advocates to request for the file to be returned to the registry of the High Court. 3. This application is opposed. 4. The grounds are to be found in the affidavit of Wilson Muraya Muriuki. 5. The respondents maintain that the applicant on a willing seller and willing buyer agreement sold parcels of Land LR. No. Mwerua/kagio/1322 and LR. Mwerua/kagio/1383 for valuable consideration in the years between 1980 to 1981. Upon the death of the deceased, the applicant took upon, himself to intimidate the beneficiaries of the Estate of the late Charles Muriuki Muraya through litigation and unnecessary threats; That the application is in bad faith and in allowing it, it will amount to the revival of an illegal application dated 11th March, 2019 seeking the revocation of the grant of letters of Administration made to the respondents on 5th September, 2008 and the certificate of confirmation of grant issued on 27th November, 2009 and amended on 1st March, 2012. 6. Further that the applicants have no capacity to continue litigation from a deceased person who himself had no legal or moral standing on the original application dated 11th March, 2019. Analysis and Determination Issues 1. Whether grounds for enlargement of time have been established. This application for enlargement of time cannot be looked into without a percusory view of the main application, which is the one dated 11th March, 2019 which same is for revocation of grant of letters of administration made to the Respondents on 5th November, 2008 and certificate of confirmation of grant issued on 27th November, 2009. Order 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides; ‘‘Where one or two or more plaintiffs dies and the cause of action does not survive or continue to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and the cause of action survives or continues, the court on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party, and shall proceed with the suit’’. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11616/eng@2026-02-10 2

page 2 of 3

2. Where within one year no application is made under sub-rule (1) the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned, and on the application of the defendant, the court may award to him the costs which he may have incurred in defending the suit to be recovered from the Estate of the deceased plaintiff, provided the court may, for good reason on application extend the time. 7. When a suit is abated it needs to be revived as provided for under Rule 7(2) of the Rules. 8. The delay in making the applications is said to have been occasioned by lack of legal fees as they were attending to medical bills left by their sick father. 9. I have perused the Notice of Motion application and no medical bills have been annexed. The applicant also contends that the Covid19 pandemic was also instrumental in the delay. This, I find is not a good reason for the inordinate delay. 10. It is noted that there is no prayer for revival of the suit. The regulations require of it as argued Supra. The mistake is not one curable under article 159 of the constitution. 11. This application has no merit and it is dismissed with costs to the respondents. RULING DELIVERED THIS 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026. ................ MARTIN M. MUYA JUDGE In the Presence of: Mr. Gori for the Respondent Court assistant – Isaack Molu https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11616/eng@2026-02-10 3

page 3 of 3