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

Sakaja v Sakaja (Land Case E005 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 388 (KLR) (6 February 2025) (Ruling)

[2025] KEELC 388 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
388
Citation
[2025] KEELC 388 (KLR)
Decided
6 February 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLand CasePostureApplication for leave to take evidence de bene esseCoramNASIEKO ENE SAKAJA, PRISCILLAH KOILA SAKAJA
Holding

The court finds that the respondent's power of attorney is sufficient and allows the applicant to donate the power of attorney to her son to testify on her behalf.

Facts

The applicant is aged 102 and has deteriorating health. The respondent has provided a power of attorney allowing her son to testify on her behalf.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's evidence should be taken de bene esse due to her advanced age and deteriorating health.
  2. Whether the respondent's power of attorney is sufficient to allow the son to testify on the applicant's behalf.

Reasoning

The court considers the applicant's advanced age and health as a sufficient cause to allow the evidence to be taken de bene esse. The respondent's power of attorney is deemed sufficient to allow the son to testify.

Outcome

The application is granted, and the applicant is allowed to donate the power of attorney to her son to testify on her behalf.

Orders

  • Allow the application for leave to take evidence de bene esse.
  • Grant the power of attorney to the respondent's son to testify on the applicant's behalf.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (3)
  • Order 18 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules
  • Martha Thairora Gikundi v Elizabeth Kananu and Another (2014) eKLR
  • Mmucheeke Murianki v Phinehas Micheni Mucheke and Another (2016) eKLR
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