Komuhangi Suzan and Others v Francis Ngairano (Civil Appeal 230 of 2016)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The appellants, who had appealed the dismissal of their suit as time-barred under the Limitation Act, withdrew the appeal after reaching an out-of-court family settlement and stated they were no longer interested following the respondent's death. The Court of Appeal accordingly dismissed the appeal. The respondent's cross-appeal on costs abated because he had died and no interested person had applied under rule 97 of the Rules of the Court to substitute the deceased's legal representative. No order was made as to costs. The substantive limitation grounds were not adjudicated.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed on the appellants' withdrawal; cross-appeal abated following the respondent's death
Facts
The appellants, plaintiffs in the High Court, sued the respondent seeking revocation of letters of administration granted to him over the estate of the late F.X. Kigorogoro, a declaration of their shares in the estate, an account of the administration, a permanent injunction against further dealing with the estate, and reparation for loss to the estate. At scheduling, the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the suit was time-barred under sections 5 and 20 of the Limitation Act as one for recovery of land and an interest in the deceased's personal estate. The trial judge upheld the objection and dismissed the suit, with no order as to costs. The appellants appealed on three grounds, and the respondent cross-appealed on costs. Before the appeal was decided, the appellants' counsel filed a letter withdrawing the appeal, explaining that the family had reached an out-of-court settlement and that the respondent had since died, so they no longer wished to pursue the matter.
Issues
- Whether the appeal should be dismissed following the appellants' withdrawal of the appeal after an out-of-court family settlement.
- Whether the cross-appeal abates where the cross-appellant has died and no application has been made to substitute his legal representative.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The cross-appeal abates.
- There is no order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 11(d)
- Limitation Act s.5
- Limitation Act s.20
- Limitation Act s.19(1)
- Rules of the Court of Appeal r.97
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.