Gachoki & 23 others v Njuguna & Others; Gichangi & 2 others (Intended Substitutes) (Civil Appeal (Application) 54 of 2020) [2024] KECA 1379 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal struck out a substitution application because the applicants cited court rules but not the actual law that gives the court power to hear it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction had been properly invoked by the application for substitution of deceased appellants
- 2.Whether the intended substitutes should be joined in place of the deceased appellants
- 3.Whether the application should be struck out for failure to disclose the statutory basis conferring jurisdiction
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court's jurisdiction was properly invoked by an application premised only on Civil Procedure Rules without citing the empowering statute
The application was struck out because the statute underpinning it was not identified and no law donating jurisdiction to the Court was cited
The court noted that an identical earlier application before Wanjiru Karanja, JA had been rejected for the same defect: the rules were cited but the statute on which the application was premised was not indicated, so no jurisdictional foundation was disclosed. The same mistake was repeated here, and the same factual difficulty - parties who died long before the appeal was filed - persisted. Without a jurisdictional anchor the court could not entertain the substitution.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking relief from the Court of Appeal must cite the specific law that donates jurisdiction; without it the Court's jurisdiction is not invoked and the application will be struck out
Court orders
#- 1.The application is struck out with no order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not established - the court found that no law donating jurisdiction had been invoked; application was premised on Order 52 rule 1 and Order 25 rule 3(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (marked sic)
Relief refused
#Substitution of Charles Munene Gichangi for the 7th Appellant, Peter Wachira Njuguna for the 10th Appellant and Joseph Muriithi Muthike for the 11th Appellant
The application failed to disclose the law conferring jurisdiction on the Court, and some (if not all) of the deceased parties died long before the appeal was filed
Costs
No order as to costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is necessary and important for the Court's jurisdiction to be properly invoked by citing the law that gives the Court the requisite jurisdiction to handle the application before me.
Accordingly, the application is struck out with no order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's opening paragraphs (1 and 2) are blank in the record; the ruling attributed to Wanjiru Karanja, JA is quoted within this judgment but its date (7th July 2024) postdates the applicants' affidavits dated 4th June 2024, which is internally consistent but the coram/appeal details are incomplete
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gachoki & 23 others v Njuguna & Others; Gichangi & 2 others (Intended Substitutes) (Civil Appeal (Application) 54 of 2020) [2024] KECA 1379 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1379/eng@2024-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.