https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6403

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6403

The court held that the appeal had already been determined by judgment dated 23 January 2025, the file was closed, and there was no proof of any appeal to the Court of Appeal or stay of execution. Accordingly, the later applications filed in that concluded matter were improperly before the court and constituted an...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 6403 (KLR)
Parties
1st Appellant: Mary Ayimba; 2nd Appellant: Michael Odhiambo Ayimba; 1st Respondent: Peter Otieno Ogutu; 2nd Respondent: Aloice Ayimba Ogutu
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E002 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (consolidated) / Ruling on Respondents' Application to Strike Out Post Judgment Applications in a Concluded Appeal
Outcome
Applications struck out; each party to bear own costs.
Judges
["DK Kemei"]
Legal Topics
Abuse of Court Process, Striking Out Applications, Jurisdiction After Judgment, Finality of Appeals, Proceedings in a Concluded Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Succession Law Appellate Practice Abuse of Court Process Striking Out Applications Jurisdiction After Judgment Finality of Appeals Proceedings in a Concluded Appeal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Ayimba

1st Appellant

Michael Odhiambo Ayimba

2nd Appellant

Peter Otieno Ogutu

1st Respondent

Aloice Ayimba Ogutu

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (consolidated) / Ruling on Respondents' Application to Strike Out Post Judgment Applications in a Concluded Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the High Court could entertain applications filed in a matter whose appeal had already been determined and the file closed.
  2. 2 Whether the pending applications amounted to an abuse of the court process.
  3. 3 What directions should issue regarding any grievances after the conclusion of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appeal had already been determined by judgment dated 23 January 2025, the file was closed, and there was no proof of any appeal to the Court of Appeal or stay of execution. Accordingly, the later applications filed in that concluded matter were improperly before the court and constituted an abuse of process, warranting striking out.

Court Disposition

Applications struck out; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • Applications dated 30 November 2025, 11 December 2025, 9 February 2026, 13 March 2026 and 15 April 2026 struck out.
  • Parties aggrieved by the judgment dated 23 January 2025 at liberty to move the Court of Appeal.