SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Rokocho & another v Chepkiyeng & another (Civil Application E112 of 2021) [2022] KECA 115 (KLR) (11 February 2022) (Ruling)

[2022] KECA 115 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
115
Citation
[2022] KECA 115 (KLR)
Decided
11 February 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil ApplicationPostureAppeal from the High Court at EldoretCoramOmondi, Mumbi Ngugi, F Tuiott
Holding

The motion is devoid of merit and accordingly fails. It is dismissed with costs to the applicants.

Facts

The applicants are Esther Kabon Rokocho and Wilson Kiprono Rokocho, and the respondents are Kobil Chepkiyeng and Esther Kipsat. The applicants sought a stay of further proceedings in Eldoret High Court Succession Cause No. 304 of 2007, Re Estate of Teriki Rokocho (Deceased) pending the hearing and determination of an intended appeal.

Issues

  1. The main issue of contention is the learned Judge's failure to hold that the suit land in the succession proceedings was held by the deceased in trust for the 2nd applicant, was not part of the deceased's estate.
  2. Whether the intended appeal is arguable.

Reasoning

The court considered the grounds of appeal and found that the main issue is a core issue that will fall for determination by the learned judge upon the hearing of the matter substantively on its merits. The court also noted that the proceedings were scheduled for 4th October, 2021, and the motion has been overtaken by events.

Outcome

Dismissed

Orders

  • Order to stay further proceedings in Eldoret High Court Succession Cause No. 304 of 2007, Re Estate of Teriki Rokocho (Deceased) pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
  • Order to dismiss the motion with costs to the applicants.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (1)
  • Reliance Bank Limited -vs- Norlake Investments Limited [2002] 1 EA 227.
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case