M’anampiu M’mukindia v Francis M’ringera M’rimberia, Stanley Mwenda & John Marete Anampiu & Stanley Karemu Anampiu [2015] KEHC 1237 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU

HCC 68 OF 2002

M’ANAMPIU M’MUKINDIA ................................................................PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

FRANCIS M’RINGERA M’RIMBERIA...................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

STANLEY MWENDA ...............................................2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

AND

JOHN MARETE ANAMPIU & STANLEY

KAREMU ANAMPIU …................................LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES/APPLICANTS

R U L I N G

This application has been brought pursuant to Section 1A,1B,3A,63 (c ) and (e), 95 and 100 of the Civil  Procedure Act, Order 8 Rule 3 and 5 and Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure  Rules and Articles 10, 25(c ), 50 (1) and 159 of the Constitution  of Kenya.  The application seeks orders:-

THATthe application be certified extremely urgent  and it be heard on priority basis .

THATthe Plaintiff/ Applicant be granted extension/ enlargement  of time within which to amend the Originating Summons on record.

THATcosts of the application be in the cause.

The application is supported by the affidavit of STANLEY KAREMU ANAMPIU and has the following grounds:-

THATleave granted to amend the originating summons, vide a Ruling delivered herein on 29. 09. 2011, has since lapsed.

THATthe new Plaintiffs/Applicants  became aware of the above requirement on 11. 08. 2015 through their present counsel who perused the Court file upon filing a notice of change of advocates and realized the same.

THATthe original Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant are deceased.

THATthe new Plaintiffs/Applicants were allowed to substitute the deceased Plaintiff.

THATfrom 29. 09. 2011, the matter has been in Court on several occasions.

THATthe application is made in utmost good faith, and  in the interest of justice, since the Court has absolute discretion to grant the relief sought.

During Interpartes hearing on 7/10/2015, the Advocate for the respondents did not attend Court. The Respondents were also not in Court.

Mr. Rimita who was holding brief for Advocate Carlpeters Mbaabu, for the Applicant, told  the Court that the application was not opposed and  urged  the Court to allow the application.

I find that the application is not opposed.  In the Circumstances, the application is allowed.  Costs shall be in the cause.

It is so ordered.

Delivered in open Court this 8th day of October, 2015 in the presence of:-

CC: Lilian /Daniel

Ondari h/b Carlpeters Mbaabu for Applicant.

Muthomi present for Respondents.

P.M.NJOROGE

JUDGE