Murumba v Natili (Civil Application E089 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1578 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that an appeal application automatically dies when the opposing party dies and no one is substituted to take their place.
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 applicant should be granted an extension of time to file and serve the notice of appeal and the appeal from the High Court judgment of 26th May, 2023
- 2.What is the effect of the death of the respondent, with no substitution, on the pending application
Key legal issues
#Effect of the death of a respondent without substitution on an application for extension of time
The application abates under Rule 53(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules where the respondent has died and no substitution has been effected.
The respondent died on 30th June 2023. The respondent's advocate deposed, in an unopposed replying affidavit, that he had no instructions on how to proceed as the respondent had not been substituted and attempts to have a representative substituted had not been fruitful. No application for substitution having been made, the motion could not be sustained and was deemed to have abated.
Legal principles established
#- Where the respondent in a pending appeal application dies and no application is made to substitute a representative, the application abates under Rule 53(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion is deemed to have abated under Rule 53(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 53(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules (abatement of the application)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file and serve the notice of appeal and the appeal
The respondent died on 30th June 2023 and was never substituted; the application therefore abated under Rule 53(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The applicant also gave no reason for the delay and filed no written submissions.
Costs
No order as to costs is recorded in the judgment
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.
Upon considering the motion, and the afidavit sworn by the respondent’s advocate not having been opposed, it is apparent that the respondent having died on 30th June, 2023, and no application having been made to substitute the respondent, the notice of motion is deemed to have abated under Rule 53(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment contains typographical errors, suggesting possible transcription issues: 'away of a notice of motion' (for 'by way of'), 'procced' (for 'proceed'), and 'afidavit' (for 'affidavit').
The case number, respondent's name and full case title are not stated in the judgment text provided.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Murumba v Natili (Civil Application E089 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1578 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1578/eng@2024-11-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.