Section 29: Continuing a case after the plaintiff dies

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 9004/2558 (2015)

   Where a guardian filed a charge for an incapacitated injured person and both the guardian and then the injured person die, another guardian may continue the case under the second paragraph of Section 29.

   A guardian had filed the charge for the injured plaintiff. After one guardian died another entered, and when the plaintiff later died the remaining guardian continued the case under Section 29 second paragraph. The court proceeded to the preliminary hearing and accepted the charge on the surviving counts.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 14252/2558 (2015)

   Where a private prosecutor dies after signing an appeal, a descendant who wishes to carry the prosecution on does so under Section 29, and not under Section 15 with Civil Procedure Code Section 42; the report expressly corrects the party's reliance on the latter. The Supreme Court did not rule on the substitution itself, because it held that the Court of Appeal's order was an interlocutory order of that court and that a further appeal against it was barred by Sections 225 and 196.

   The second plaintiff died after signing the appeal and the first plaintiff, a child of the deceased, applied to carry the case on. The defendant moved for a preliminary ruling on a question of law, and the Court of Appeal Region 6 set aside the trial court's order admitting the appeal and directed the trial court to have the appeal properly signed before making a fresh order. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that once the trial court had admitted the appeal the case was before the Court of Appeal, that the Court of Appeal's order was an interlocutory order of that court even though cast as a judgment, and that setting aside the admission order did not dispose of the case because the Court of Appeal still had to deal with it. The final appeal was therefore barred and was dismissed. The Court did not decide whether continuation in place of the deceased under section 29 was the correct basis; the Court of Appeal had not yet reached the merits.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 4337/2565 (2022)

   A person who is directly injured in their own right sues as an injured person under Section 28 and need not wait to continue a deceased relative's case under Section 29.

   In a forged will case, the plaintiff's status as an injured person was separate from that of the deceased and not exclusive to her. It was therefore unnecessary for the relative to have filed first and then died before the plaintiff could act; the plaintiff sued in his own right under Section 28, not as a continuation under Section 29.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.