SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Mary Wanjiru Njuguna v Hezekiah Mathara [2010] KECA 278 (KLR)

[2010] KECA 278 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
278
Citation
[2010] KECA 278 (KLR)
Decided
21 May 2010
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureApplication for leave to substitute deceased appellant with legal representativeCoramD. K. S. AGANYANYA
Holding

The appeal abated at the end of twelve months of the death of the deceased appellant, because rule 96(2) of the Court's Rules says so. The application is hereby ordered dismissed with no order for costs.

Facts

The deceased, Hezekiah Mathara, died on 6th July, 2008. Mary Wanjiku Njuguna, the legal representative of the deceased, filed an application for leave to substitute the deceased in an ongoing appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal should be allowed to proceed with the deceased's legal representative as the appellant.
  2. Whether the appeal has abated due to the death of the deceased before the application was filed.

Reasoning

The Court ruled that the appeal abated due to the death of the deceased appellant before the application for substitution was filed, as per Rule 96(2) of the Court's Rules, which states that an appeal shall abate if no application is made within 12 months from the date of death of the appellant.

Outcome

Application dismissed with no order for costs

Orders

  • The application for leave to substitute the deceased appellant with her legal representative was dismissed.
  • The appeal has abated due to the death of the deceased appellant before the application was filed.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Law of Succession Act
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case