Njenga (Suing on Behalf of the Estate of Harriet Karura alias Harriet Karura Ndungi) & another v Mwaura & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 127 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 109 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a bid to substitute a deceased plaintiff because the applicant had no grant of administration and the suit had already lapsed.
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 has the locus standi to bring the application for substitution.
- 2.Whether substitution can be granted in a suit that has abated in the absence of an application to revive the suit.
Key legal issues
#Locus standi to seek substitution of a deceased plaintiff
The Applicant lacked locus standi; the limited grant he relied on was issued for other succession causes and was not exhibited or applicable.
The court applied authorities holding that locus standi is cardinal and goes to jurisdiction. The Applicant's grant dated 16th May 2024 was limited to representation in two specified succession causes, not this suit, and was not even annexed to the supporting affidavit. A grant ad litem is purpose-specific and exhausted once its purpose is achieved; without a grant for prosecuting this case, the Applicant could not be heard.
Effect of abatement on an application for substitution
The suit abated more than a year after the deceased's death, and without an application to revive it, substitution could not be granted.
Order 24 Rule 3 provides that where no application to join the legal representative is made within one year of a plaintiff's death, the suit abates. Order 7 permits the legal representative to apply to revive an abated suit. The deceased died on 23rd November 2023 and the substitution application was filed on 4th February 2025, over a year later, with no revival application; hence there was no valid subsisting suit to which substitution could attach.
Legal principles established
#- A person who has not obtained/exhibited a grant of letters of administration for the relevant purpose has no locus standi to sue, be sued, or seek substitution of a deceased party.
- A limited grant ad litem is issued for a specific purpose and is exhausted once that purpose is achieved.
- Where no application is made within one year of a sole plaintiff's death, the suit abates, and substitution cannot be granted without revival of the abated suit.
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicant's Chamber Summons application dated 4th February 2025 seeking leave to substitute the deceased plaintiff is dismissed.
- 2.Costs awarded to the 1st Respondent.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction; Civil Procedure Rules (Order 24)
Relief refused
#Leave to substitute Minnie Wanjiku Njenga (deceased) as plaintiff
The Applicant lacked locus standi having not exhibited a grant for this purpose, and the suit had abated with no application to revive it.
Costs
Dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent.
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.
The upshot is that the Applicant’s application lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent.
What can be discerned from the above authorities is that a person who has not obtained a grant of letters of administration has no locus standi to sue or be sued.
Therefore, it is clear that a Grant Ad Litem is issued for a specific, limited and finite purpose. Once the purpose for which such a Grant was issued is achieved, the Grant is exhausted and becomes obsolete.
Clearly by the time the application was filed, the suit had abated and no application was made for revival of the same.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case title or case number of the suit in which the application was filed.
The court in which the judgment was delivered is not expressly stated; only the delivery venue (Thika) and a judge's signature appear.
The 1st Respondent is never identified by name in the body of the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njenga (Suing on Behalf of the Estate of Harriet Karura alias Harriet Karura Ndungi) & another v Mwaura & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 127 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 109 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/109/eng@2026-01-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.