Njagi v Syokimau Farm Limited & 15 others (Land Case E020 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3158 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court corrected its own ruling and let the children of a deceased plaintiff take over his lawsuit because they applied within one year.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the notice of motion dated 11 May 2026 met the legal threshold for review under Section 80 CPA and Order 45 Rule 1 CPR
It did: it was filed within a week of the impugned ruling (no unreasonable delay) and was founded on an error apparent on the face of the record, namely the court's failure to determine the application dated 15 October 2025.
Section 80 and Order 45 Rule 1 permit review on discovery of new matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, without unreasonable delay. Applying the principles in Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex parte Apollo Mboya and National Bank of Kenya v Ndungu Njau, an error that is self-evident and requires no elaborate argument qualifies. The omission to make any orders on the 15 October 2025 motion was manifest on the face of the record.
Whether the application dated 15 October 2025 for substitution of the deceased plaintiff ought to be allowed
Yes. The applicants held a grant of probate, were the deceased's legal representatives, and moved the court before the one-year abatement period under Order 24 Rule 3(2) expired.
Order 24 Rule 3(1) obliges the court, on application, to cause the legal representative of a deceased sole plaintiff to be made a party where the cause of action survives. The applicants produced a grant of probate with written will annexed dated 3 September 2025, which under Section 80 of the Law of Succession Act establishes the will from the date of death and validates intermediate acts of the executors. The application was filed before one year lapsed, so the suit had not abated.
Legal principles established
#- A failure by a court to render any determination on an application before it is an error apparent on the face of the record that can be corrected on review.
- A legal representative may be substituted for a deceased sole plaintiff under Order 24 Rule 3 where the application is made within one year before abatement.
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling dated 5 May 2026 is reviewed from paragraph 3(a) onwards
- 2.The last paragraph of the ruling of 5 May 2026 is to read as follows: 'In the premises, the notice of motion dated 15 October 2025 succeeds, and the following final disposal orders are hereby issued'
- 3.Agnes Gathaiya, alias Joan Agnes Wairimu Gathaiya, and Peter Ndegwa Gathaiya are made parties to these proceedings as the plaintiffs, in substitution of the deceased Daniel Joseph Gathaiya Njagi
- 4.Costs shall be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njagi v Syokimau Farm Limited & 15 others (Land Case E020 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3158 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of motion dated 11 May 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3158/eng@2026-05-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.