Olima v Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology (JOOUST) (Civil Appeal (Application) E228 of 2022) [2026] KECA 11 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal revived an appeal that had lapsed after a party died, accepting family bereavement as a good reason for the filing delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant established 'sufficient cause' for her failure to file the application for substitution of the deceased appellant within the twelve-month period provided by the Rules
- 2.Whether the appeal that had abated by operation of law should be revived and the applicant substituted as appellant
Key legal issues
#Whether 'sufficient cause' was established for the out-of-time substitution application under Rule 102 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Yes. Bereavement of three deaths in the applicant's nuclear family within the material year disoriented her and prevented her from filing the substitution application within twelve months.
The court found as fact that the deceased appellant died in January/February 2024, that the applicant held a grant of letters of administration ad litem giving her legal authority, and that the application was unopposed. It accepted her explanation that three deaths and attendant bereavements within her nuclear family in the material year disoriented her, holding she was thereby prevented from filing in time, and revived the abated appeal with substitution.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal does not abate on the death of a party; where no substitution application is made within twelve months the appeal abates, but the court shall revive it if the legal representative proves sufficient cause for the delay.
Court orders
#- 1.The application is allowed
- 2.The appeal that had abated by operation of law is revived
- 3.The applicant, Beatrice Atieno Wando, shall substitute the deceased as the appellant in the appeal
- 4.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 102 of the Court of Appeal Rules (revival of an abated appeal)
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.
The application has merit and is hereby allowed. The appeal that abated by the operation of the law is hereby ordered revived. The applicant, Beatrice Atieno Wando shall substitute the deceased as the appellant in this appeal. There shall be no orders as to costs.
This Court is persuaded that the applicant was prevented from filing the application for substitution due to the tragedies that befell her family during the material period.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states two different dates of death for the deceased appellant: 29th January 2024 in the opening paragraph and 29th February 2024 in the paragraph assessing the evidence. February 29, 2024 existed only in a leap year, but the internal inconsistency is unexplained.
The certificate appended to the judgment indicates it was signed by a single Judge of Appeal ('L. KIMARU ... JUDGE OF APPEAL') rather than the usual multi-member bench of the Court of Appeal; the coram does not list any other judges.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Olima v Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology (JOOUST) (Civil Appeal (Application) E228 of 2022) [2026] KECA 11 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/11/eng@2026-01-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.