Waswa v Nakayima (Civil Suit 1050 of 2021)
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
A donee of power of attorney has no capacity to sue in his own name and must institute proceedings in the name of the principal (donor) through the donee. The plaintiff, acting as attorney for Semuwemba Stephen, improperly instituted the suit in his own name rather than in the donor's name through himself as agent. This procedural irregularity is incurable without a formal application by notice of motion under Order 1 Rule 10 CPR. The suit was dismissed for lack of locus standi.
Outcome
Suit dismissed for lack of locus standi
Facts
The plaintiff instituted a civil suit in the Land Division in his own name. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the plaintiff, being a donee of power of attorney from Semuwemba Stephen, lacked capacity to sue in his own name. The power of attorney itself was not challenged. The defendant argued that under established law, the proper procedure requires the suit to be instituted in the name of the principal (donor) through the donee, not in the donee's personal name. The plaintiff argued that the power of attorney conferred authority to institute the suit and requested in the alternative that the court substitute the donor as plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 CPR.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff legally instituted this case in his name as a donee of power of attorney of Semuwemba Stephen?
Orders
- Preliminary objection upheld.
- Civil Suit No. 1050 of 2021 dismissed for lack of locus standi.
- Costs awarded to the defendant against the plaintiff.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.1 r.10
Cases cited (2)
- Ayihuguhugu & Co. Advocates v Munyakindi Muteri [1990-1992] KLR 180
- Botique Sazim Ltd v Noratam Bahtia & another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1997)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.