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

In re Estate of Apasiana Saryaeli Murunga (Deceased) (Succession Cause 697 of 2009) [2025] KEHC 5179 (KLR) (Family) (30 April 2025) (Directions)

[2025] KEHC 5179 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
5179
Citation
[2025] KEHC 5179 (KLR)
Decided
30 April 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeSuccessionPostureDirectionsCoramHK CHEMITEI
Holding

The court grants the Respondent 14 days to file and serve her submissions in respect to both the preliminary objection and the substantive application. The Applicant is also granted 14 days to file necessary submissions in response. Costs are awarded to the Respondent.

Facts

The matter was initially scheduled for directions on 10 July 2024, but the Respondent did not appear. The court directed submissions to be filed and the matter to be mentioned on 26 November 2024. The court was unable to deliver the ruling due to the court's annual leave. The Respondent filed an application on 10 April 2025, arguing that they were unable to respond on 26 November 2024 due to technical issues with the court's online platform.

Issues

  1. Respondent's inability to respond due to technical issues
  2. Granting the Respondent 14 days to file and serve submissions

Reasoning

The court acknowledges the Respondent's technical issues but grants them the requested extension due to the Respondent's inability to respond on the scheduled date.

Outcome

The court grants the Respondent 14 days to file and serve her submissions.

Orders

  • Respondent granted 14 days to file and serve submissions
  • Applicant granted 14 days to file necessary submissions in response

Remedies

  • Costs to the Respondent
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