Diana Wanjiku Ndegwa v Methi & Swani Co-Operative, Daniel Njuguna Githae, Murigi Njuguna, Stephen Muriu , Boniface Ndiko & Alice Wairimu [2021] KECPT 510 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT NAIROBI

TRIBUNAL CASE NO.478 OF 2011

DIANA WANJIKU NDEGWA ...........................................................................CLAIMANT

VERSUS

METHI & SWANI  CO-OPERATIVE    .....................................................1ST  RESPONDENT

DANIEL NJUGUNA  GITHAE..................................................................2ND RESPONDENT

MURIGI NJUGUNA................................................................................3RD RESPONDENT

STEPHEN  MURIU....................................................................................4TH RESPONDENT

BONIFACE  NDIKO................................................................................5TH RESPONDENT

ALICE  WAIRIMU ..................................................................................6TH  RESPONDENT

RULING

Vide the Application  dated 28. 11. 2019, the Claimant has moved  this Tribunal  seeking  for the following orders :

1. That  this Honourable  Tribunal  be pleased  to  revive  the suit herein;

2. That  this  Honorable  Tribunal  be pleased  to extend  time within  which  to substitute  the Claimant with her  legal representative ;

3. That  this  Honorable  Tribunal  be  pleased  to substitute the Claimant, Diana Wanjiku Ndegwa (Deceased) with James  Kariuki Ndegwa;

4. That cost of this application be provided for.

The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and the  Affidavit sworn by James  Kariuki Ndegwa on 28. 11. 2019.

The 2nd -6th Respondent  have opposed  the Application vide  the  Replying  Affidavit  sworn by  2nd Respondent  Daniel  Njuguna Githae on 20. 2.2020.

The  1st  Respondent  did not file any response to the Application irrespective  of service. Vide  the  directions  given  on  24. 8.2020,  the Application  was canvassed  by way of  written submissions.  The Claimant filed his  written submissions  on  8. 9.2020 while  the Respondent did not so  despite  service.

Claimant’s  Contention

Applicant  case  that the  instant  suit  has abated  and that  it  is necessary for the  Orders  sought  to  be  granted  so as  to  progress  the same.

That  the Claimant  died  on  31. 7.2013 and that  her  Dependents  got to learn  and/or  know about  the pendency  of this  claim in April,  2019. That  upon becoming  aware of  existence  of the claim they  promptly  instructed  their current  counsel  on record  to take up  the matter. That upon  taking up  the matter  and perusing  the court record  the advocate  noted that  the claim had abated  thus necessitating  the instant Application. That  failure  to substitute  the Applicant  with the  Claimant (Deceased)  within the prescribed  period was occasioned  by  the fact that  the claim  was  not  within  his  knowledge.

That  the claim  involves  land and that  the proposed  amendments  go  to the  core of  the suit.

2nd -6th  Respondent’s Case

The  crux  of the 2nd – 6th Respondents  opposition  to the  Application  is that  the Applicant  has not shown cause  why he did not  originate the instant  Application in good  time.  That they  took  inordinately  too long   to take steps to replace  the Claimant.  That  the suit has abated  by operation  of law and that  no Application for  substitution  within  a period  of  one year  after  the death of  the Claimant.

Issues  for determination

The instant  application  has  presented  the following  issues  for determination:

a. Whether  the Applicant  has shown  sufficient  cause  to warrant  revival of the claim;

b. Whether  the applicant  has established  a proper basis  to warrant  his substitute  with the Claimant (Deceased);

c. Who should  meet  the  costs  of the Application?

Revival  of suit

Order  24  Rule  7 of  the Civil  Procedure  Rules  deals  with  abatement and dismissal  of suits. Sub- rule  (1) provides  thus:

“ 24 (7) (1)- Where  a suit abates  or is dismissed  under this order,  no fresh  suit shall be  brought  on the same  cause of  action..”

Sub- rule  2 provides  thus:

“24 (7) (2)- The plaintiff  or the person claiming  to be the legal representative  of a deceased  plaintiff or trustee  or official  receives  in the case of  a bankrupt plaintiff  may apply  for an order to  revive  a suit  which has  abated  or to set aside an order  of dismissal, and, if  it is proved that he  was presented  by any sufficient  cause from  continuing  the suit,  the court shall  revive  the suit  or set aside  such  dismissal  upon such  terms  as to costs  or otherwise  as it thinks fit..”

It is  thus apparent that the law  provides  for mechanisms  for reviving  a claim  which  has abated.  The party  so applying,  however,  ought  to  demonstrate   that he/she  was presented  by sufficient  cause  from  continuing  the suit.

The Applicant, herein  has  stated  that he only  learnt  about  existence of  this claim  in April, 2019 and immediately  applied  for letters  of administration  and litem.  That the said  letters  were granted  on 23. 9.2019. The question  we ask  ourselves  is whether  this explanation  constitutes sufficient  cause within  the meaning  of Order  24 (7)  (2). Our answer  I in the  affirmative  upon consideration  of the material  on record  and the proceedings,  there is  nothing  to show that  the dependents of the deceased Claimant  knew about the  pendency  of these  proceedings  and elected  not to continue  them.

Furthermore,  we note that  the subject  matter  of the claim  revolve  around  land and that  if the claim is  not revived,  the Deceased’s  dependents  will greatly  be prejudiced.

Conclusion

The upshot of the foregoing  is that we find  merit  in the Application  and allow it  in terms  of prayers  1,2 and  3. No orders  as to costs.

Ruling signed, dated and delivered virtually this 25th day of  March,  2021.

Hon. B. Kimemia   Chairperson   Signed  25. 3.2021

Hon. Jane Mwatsama Deputy Chairperson Signed  25. 3.2021

Mr. P. Gichuki    Member   Signed  25. 3.2021

Mrs. Kariuki Advocate  for Claimant/Applicant

No appearance  for Respondent

Mention  for directions  on  24. 5.2021. Notice  to issue.

Hon. B. Kimemia   Chairperson   Signed  25. 3.2021