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

Mafumbula & 17 others v Attorney General (Civil Application E245 of 2021) [2026] KECA 189 (KLR) (30 January 2026) (Ruling)

[2026] KECA 189 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
189
Citation
[2026] KECA 189 (KLR)
Decided
30 January 2026
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAppealPostureApplication for substitution of deceased appellant in an appealCoramHA OMONDI
Holding

The application for substitution of the deceased appellant is allowed, and the late Moses Mafumbula shall be substituted with Ridah Nasike Sirael as the 1st appellant.

Facts

The 1st appellant, Moses Mafumbula, died on 3rd August, 2024, and his estate was represented by his administrators, Ridah Nasike Sirael and Sarah Mutiembu. The 1st appellant had contested the outcome of a Bungoma High Court Petition and had lodged an appeal. However, the one-year statutory period for substitution of the deceased appellant lapsed, and the suit abated.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for substitution of the deceased appellant should be allowed
  2. Whether the appeal should be revived

Reasoning

The Court held that the rules of natural justice and fair play require that the estate of a deceased party be heard through the estate's legal representative before a decision can be rendered. The applicants demonstrated their legal status in relation to the estate of the deceased.

Outcome

The application for substitution of the deceased appellant is allowed.

Orders

  • The late Moses Mafumbula shall be substituted with Ridah Nasike Sirael as the 1st appellant

Remedies

  • Substitution of the deceased appellant with his legal representatives

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Act
Cases cited (1)
  • Njoroge & Another v Kamau (Deceased) & Another (Civil Appeal (Application) E051 of 2019) [2024] KECA 806 (KLR)
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