Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealOtherCivil Appeal (Application) E607 of 2024

Ngatu & another (Administrators of the Estate of Gicheru Mbatia (Deceased)) v Kuria & another; Mwaura (Applicant) (Civil Appeal (Application) E607 of 2024) [2025] KECA 906 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
23 May 2025
FSF SICHALE
262 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to decide a substitution application because the applicant could not prove the other parties were served with the court documents.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a brief procedural order of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, delivered by F Sichale, JA, on 23rd May 2025 in Civil Appeal (Application) E607 of 2024. The matter arose from a motion dated 19th February 2025 by Alice Wanjiku Mwaura seeking, under Rule 102 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, the substitution of the deceased 1st respondent in the appeal. The motion came up for hearing on 6th May 2025 and was slated for ruling on 23rd May 2025. On perusal of the record, the Court observed that there had been no response from the appellants or the 2nd respondent, and, more significantly, that there was no proof of service of the motion upon the appellants or the 2nd respondent. In light of these gaps, the Court declined to determine the application on the merits and instead directed the registry to relist the motion afresh, with service upon the appellants and the 2nd respondent to be proved first. The order makes no determination on the merits of the substitution, sets no costs, and does not disturb any decision below; it is purely case-management in character. It establishes no binding precedent and the disposition is captured entirely in the direction to relist the motion upon proof of service.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicant's motion dated 19th February 2025 for substitution of the deceased 1st respondent could be determined on the hearing date given the state of the record

Key legal issues

#

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.The motion dated 19th February 2025 is to be relisted afresh by the registry upon proof of service of the motion upon the appellant and the 2nd respondent

    The bench

    #

    One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

    FS
    majority

    Wrote the judgment

    Jurisdiction invoked
    Rule 102 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (application for substitution of a deceased respondent)

    Relief refused

    #

    Determination of the substitution application at the hearing of 6th May 2025

    There was no response from the appellant and 2nd respondent and no proof of service of the motion upon them

    p. 1

    Costs

    No costs order made

    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.

    In view of the above, the motion is to be relisted afresh by the registry upon proof of service of the motion upon the appellant and the 2nd respondent.
    p. 2Relisting of substitution motion pending proof of service

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Ngatu & another (Administrators of the Estate of Gicheru Mbatia (Deceased)) v Kuria & another; Mwaura (Applicant) (Civil Appeal (Application) E607 of 2024) [2025] KECA 906 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal (Application) E607 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/906/eng@2025-05-23

    Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.