Juma v Orange Telekom Kenya Ltd & 3 others (Civil Appeal 251 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1323 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal revived an appeal filed nearly three years late, accepting that a widow's financial hardship explained the delay after her husband's death.
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 application by the legal representative of a deceased appellant is a competent application for revival of an abated appeal and substitution
- 2.Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for the granting of the orders sought, considering the length of and reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the prejudice to the respondent
Key legal issues
#Whether a financial constraint constitutes sufficient cause for the late application to revive an abated appeal and substitute the deceased appellant
Yes. The delay of two years and nine months was not inordinate, and the widow's explanation of financial constraint following the sudden death of the sole breadwinner was satisfactory and unchallenged.
The court applied the four-pronged test from Sila Mutiso vs. Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi. Taking judicial notice of the harsh economic times in the country, it accepted the widow's deposition that she had to choose between feeding the family and filing the application. The explanation was unchallenged by the respondent, whose only complaint was lateness. The court also noted the pending mediation referral as good reason to allow the applicant to be heard, favouring substantive justice.
Whether an application by the legal representative of a deceased party to a abated appeal is competent
Yes. The application having been made by the legal representative of the estate, it is competent, and only the legal representative may seek revival of an abated appeal.
Rule 102(3), which amended the repealed rule 99(3) of the 2010 Rules, permits a person claiming to be the legal representative of a deceased party to apply for revival of an abated appeal where prevented by sufficient cause. Relying on Charles Mbwika Musee vs. Settlement Fund Trustees, the court confirmed that only the legal representative may move the court for revival; the applicant held a limited grant ad litem obtained for that purpose.
Legal principles established
#- Once an appeal abates, only the legal representative of the deceased party may move the court for revival of the appeal
- An appeal abates if no application to substitute the deceased party is made within twelve months from the date of death
- The test for revival of an abated appeal considers the length of delay, reason for delay, chances of the appeal succeeding and prejudice to the respondent
Court orders
#- 1.An order substituting the appellant, the late Hilton Mwakio Juma (deceased), with Nancy Wanja Mwangi, the Administratrix ad-litem of the deceased's Estate
- 2.Any reference in the record of appeal and in the appeal to the late Hilton Mwakio Juma (deceased) to be amended, as far as possible, to read Nancy Wanja Mwangi, the Administratrix Ad-Litem of the Estate of Hilton Mwakio Juma (deceased)
- 3.Costs of the application to be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 87(1) and 102 of the Court of Appeal Rules
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.
a. An order be and is hereby issued and or made to substitute the appellant, the late Hilton Mwakio Juma (deceased) with Nancy Wanja Mwangi, the Administratrix ad–litem of the deceased's Estate.
That the costs of this application be in the cause.
I do not consider that two years and nine months was inordinate delay.
It is basic that the rules of natural justice and fair play would require that where a party to a suit dies and the cause of action survives him, his estate has to be heard through the estate's legal representative
Rule 102(2) provides that an appeal abates if no application is made to substitute the deceased party within twelve months from the date of death.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the respondent's counsel failed to disclose the death/abatement when appearing on 18th December '2012', which is inconsistent with the appeal chronology (deceased died 5th September 2022; directions order by Joel Ngugi, JA made 18th December 2025) - likely a typographical error in the year.
The judgment refers to 'the order of the Joel Ngugi, JA' - the article 'the' before a judge's name is a grammatical anomaly.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Juma v Orange Telekom Kenya Ltd & 3 others (Civil Appeal 251 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1323 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (application under rule 87(1) and 102 of the Court of Appeal Rules). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1323/eng@2026-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.