Kimeriah (Suing in her capacity as the administrator of the Estate of Harrison Charles Kimeriah - Deceased) v Housing Finance Company (K) Ltd (Civil Appeal (Application) E061 of 2024) [2026] KECA 949 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal has cleared the way for the Supreme Court to decide what lenders must do when selling property belonging to a borrower who has died.
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 intended appeal to the Supreme Court raises a matter of general public importance under Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution
Key legal issues
#Whether the requirements for realisation of security where the chargor is deceased at the time of sale, and the chargee's insurance obligations upon intervening death of a chargor, raise matters of general public importance
Yes. The principles on statutory power of sale are settled, but the facts raised a novel incidental issue as to whether additional legal requirements and procedures apply where the chargor is deceased at the time of sale, and the insurance obligations of a chargee in such circumstances remain unsettled.
The court applied the Steyn test. While the general principles governing statutory power of sale are settled and fact-dependent, the questions posed by the applicant — whether service of statutory notices on a deceased chargor suffices, and what the chargee's insurance obligations are upon intervening death — arose from the facts, were live in the courts below, are unsettled in the law, and affect representatives and dependants of deceased chargors whose securities are realised.
The test for certification of a matter of general public importance under Article 163(4)(b)
The principles in Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone govern: the issue must transcend the particular case, bear significantly on public interest, be a substantial point of law that arose and was determined below, and mere factual contests or apprehension of miscarriage of justice do not suffice.
The court restated the Steyn principles and reiterated that certification requires identification of specific elements of general public importance; determinations of fact between parties are not by themselves a basis for certification. It eschewed merits examination, confining itself to whether a substantial question of law with public dimensions arises, citing Mwambeja Ranching on the distinction between a mere question of law and a substantial one.
Legal principles established
#- For a matter to be certified as one of general public importance, the issue must transcend the circumstances of the particular case and have a significant bearing on the public interest, and determinations of fact between parties are not by themselves a basis for certification.
- Substantial questions of law that arise from the facts of an appeal and are likely to affect a substantial number of members of the public meet the certification threshold under Article 163(4)(b).
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's intended appeal is certified as raising matters of general public importance
- 2.Leave granted to the applicant to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 4th July 2025 in Nairobi Civil Appeal No. E061 of 2024
- 3.Each party shall bear their respective costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal
- Nairobi Civil Appeal No. E061 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4) of the Constitution, specifically Article 163(4)(b) certification that a matter of general public importance is involved
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.
We accordingly find the application dated 28th July 2025 is merited to the extent that the applicant’s intended appeal is certified as raising matters of general public importance.
We accordingly grant the applicant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal (D. K Musinga, Mumbi Ngugi, & G.V Odunga JJ.A) delivered on 4th July 2025 in Nairobi Civil Appeal No. E061 of 2024.
Each party shall bear their respective costs of the application.
It is our view that where the receipt of the statutory notice is acknowledged, the allegation of non-service of the same becomes a non-issue
In our view the two questions we have set out hereinabove that were posed by the applicant raise substantial issues of law that require to be determined by the Supreme Court
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment cites Article 164(4) of the Constitution in the quoted Mwambeja passage, which concerns the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction, whereas the application proceeds under Article 163(4) - an apparent mis-citation carried over from the quoted extract.
The typed judgment bears the signature block of P. Nyamweya, L. Achode and A. Muchelule but names no author and is unsigned/undated as between the three judges; the first-listed judge is treated as author for indexing.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kimeriah (Suing in her capacity as the administrator of the Estate of Harrison Charles Kimeriah - Deceased) v Housing Finance Company (K) Ltd (Civil Appeal (Application) E061 of 2024) [2026] KECA 949 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 28th July 2025 (in Nairobi Civil Appeal No. E061 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/949/eng@2026-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.