https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8112

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8112

The court found that the dispute could not be properly resolved on the existing record and affidavit material because the critical issues were factual and required interrogation through oral evidence; it therefore held judgment in abeyance and directed the matter to proceed by viva voce evidence.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 8112 (KLR)
Parties
1st Protestor: STEPHEN BWIKO WANJIRU; 2nd Protestor: EUNICE KWONA WANJIRI; 1st Respondent: MERCY WANJIRU KARANJA; 2nd Respondent: ROBERT WOKABI KARANJA; 3rd Respondent: MARION WANGUI KARANJA; 4th Respondent: VIRGINIA WANJIRU KARANJA
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 3339 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Protest Proceedings / Directions on Mode of Hearing; Judgment Held in Abeyance
Outcome
Judgment held in abeyance; matter to proceed by oral evidence
Judges
["HK Chemitei"]
Legal Topics
Protest in Succession Proceedings, Oral Evidence Versus Affidavit Evidence, Determination of Marriage to Deceased, Inter Vivos Transfer of Land, Beneficial Entitlement in Estate
Source Language
en
Succession Law Probate and Administration Land Law Protest in Succession Proceedings Oral Evidence Versus Affidavit Evidence Determination of Marriage to Deceased Inter Vivos Transfer of Land Beneficial Entitlement in Estate

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 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

STEPHEN BWIKO WANJIRU

1st Protestor

EUNICE KWONA WANJIRI

2nd Protestor

MERCY WANJIRU KARANJA

1st Respondent

ROBERT WOKABI KARANJA

2nd Respondent

MARION WANGUI KARANJA

3rd Respondent

VIRGINIA WANJIRU KARANJA

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Protest Proceedings / Directions on Mode of Hearing; Judgment Held in Abeyance

  1. 1 Whether the objection/protest should be determined on affidavit evidence or by viva voce evidence
  2. 2 Whether the deceased was married to the late Jacinta Wanjiru Zakaria, mother of the protestors
  3. 3 Whether land parcel Dagoretti/Riruta/1332 was bequeathed inter vivos

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the dispute could not be properly resolved on the existing record and affidavit material because the critical issues were factual and required interrogation through oral evidence; it therefore held judgment in abeyance and directed the matter to proceed by viva voce evidence.

Court Disposition

Judgment held in abeyance; matter to proceed by oral evidence

Orders

  • This matter shall be determined by way of oral evidence.
  • Each party shall, within 21 days, file and serve the other with witness statements or affidavits if necessary.