Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves the substitution of deceased plaintiff Charles Muriungi with his legal representatives, Stella Karimi Muriungi and Martin Kailemia Muriungi, following his death on March 28, 2020. The court granted the application to allow legal representatives to continue the suit and execution proceedings despite objections under Order 24 Rule 3(2), citing the one-year abatement rule but permitting an extension for good reason. The motion was filed on August 25, 2021, within the one-year period, and the ruling was delivered on May 19, 2022.
Deceased Name
Charles Muriungi Tharianga
Issues
- The court was asked to determine if the respondents' preliminary objection, which argued the applicants lacked authority and the suit was barred by procedural rules, was valid and should be granted.
- The court considered whether to substitute the deceased plaintiff, Charles Muriungi, with his legal representatives, Stella Karimi Muriungi and Martin Kailemia Muriungi, to continue the case and execution proceedings.
Date of Death
2020 March 28
Holdings
- The court dismissed the respondents' objection that the suit was barred by Order 24 Rule 3(2) due to the one-year deadline for substitution. It held that the suit could not abate at the execution stage, referencing Order 24 Rule 10, which excludes execution proceedings from abatement rules. The motion was granted, and costs were awarded to the applicants.
- The court allowed the substitution of the deceased plaintiff's legal representatives (Stella Karimi Muriungi and Martin Kailemia Muriungi) as parties to continue the case, citing Order 24 Rule 3(1) which permits substitution of legal representatives when a plaintiff dies and the cause of action survives. The applicants were granted leave to file pleadings in their new status as administrators.
Remedies
- The Notice of Motion dated August 25, 2021 was allowed, and the court directed that the costs of the application be provided for.
- The court ordered the substitution of Stella Karimi Muriungi and Martin Kailemia Muriungi as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, allowing them to proceed with the case and execution of the decree, and granting leave to file suitable pleadings based on their new status as administrators of the estate.
Probate Status
Letters of administration were granted to Stella Karimi Muriungi and Martin Kailemia Muriungi on July 15, 2021, enabling them to act as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.
Legal Principles
The court addressed the legal principle of substituting a deceased plaintiff with their legal representatives under Order 24 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. It determined that the one-year time limit for substitution under Rule 3(2) did not bar the application because the suit had reached the execution stage, where substitution is not required per Order 24 Rule 10. Case law from Agnes Wanjiku Wang'ondu v Uchumi Supermarket Ltd and Mueni Kiamba v Mbithi Kimeu Kimolo reinforced the view that execution proceedings may proceed without substituting deceased parties, prioritizing the expeditious resolution of disputes.
Succession Regime
Common law intestacy succession in Kenya
Precedent Name
- Agnes Wanjiku Wang'ondu v Uchumi Supermarket Ltd
- Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others
- Mueni Kiamba v Mbithi Kimeu Kimolo
- Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd
Executor Name
- Stella Karimi Muriungi
- Martin Kailemia Muriungi
Cited Statute
- Civil Procedure Act, Order 24 Rule 3(1)
- Civil Procedure Act, Order 24 Rule 3[2]
- Civil Procedure Act, Order 24 Rule 4
- Civil Procedure Act, Order 31 Rule 1
Executor Appointment
Appointed as administrator of the estate via letters of administration dated July 15, 2021.
Judge Name
S.M. Githinji
Passage Text
- Given the above, the evidence on record that the said Stella Karimi Muriungi and Martin Kailemia Muriungi are the legally appointed representatives of the deceased [...] I find no reason as to why the orders sought by the applicants should not be granted.
- The second point of objection is that the suit is barred by Order 24 Rule 3[2] of the Civil Procedure Rules. [...] The court may, for good reason on application, extend the time.
- To the respondents, the applicants herein have no authority to carry on this suit on behalf of the deceased Plaintiff. This argument in my view is absurd because the application itself seeks to substitute the plaintiff, now deceased, with his legal representatives. The law allows such substitution under Order 24 Rule 3(1) which provides as follows:
Beneficiary Classes
Other