https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8565

In re Estate of the Late Gohil (Deceased) (Succession Cause E1951 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 8565 (KLR) (Family) (18 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8565 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Succession Cause E1951 of 2021 HK Chemitei, J June 18, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE ANSUYA NARSHI GOHIL(DECEASED) Between Dinbala Narshi Kanji Gohil Applicant and Parita Dharmesh Parmar 1st Petitioner Daimani Nipul Shah 2nd Petitioner Ruling 1.The Petitioners/Applicant in the application dated 7th May 2025 seeks orders that “there be stay of all proceedings in this matter including the citation proceedings filed to propound a document alleged to be the will of deceased pending the hearing and determination of the appeal filed in the Court of appeal”. 2.The application is based on the grounds thereof and the sworn affidavit of advocate Devinah Okelloh Manyasi acting on the Applicant’s behalf. 3.The substance of the application is to do with the judgment of this Court dated 19th September 2024 in which the Applicant was dissatisfied with. The Applicant has since filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal and is therefore seeking to bar any further proceedings by this Court till the appeal is determined. 4.The Respondent through the affidavit sworn by Dinbala Narshi Kanji Hirji Gohil dated 13th May 2025 has opposed the same on the ground majorly that the Applicant had already filed a similar application at the Court of Appeal and that the said Court had already granted some directions. 5.It is the Respondent’s case therefore that this application has been brought in bad faith as the Applicant failed to disclose to the Court the pending similar application before the Court of Appeal. 6.The Court directed the parties to file written submissions which they have complied and I have perused the same together with the cited authorities. 7.The Court is of the view taken by the Respondent. This Court essentially became funtus officio the date it delivered its judgement. The next step which the Applicant has rightly taken is to move to the Court of Appeal. 8.The Court of Appeal vide its directions dated 7th May 2025 and which the Applicant has not denied essentially stops the Applicant from making a similar application before this Court. The application before this Court was made the same day the Court of Appeal declined to grant similar orders the Applicant is seeking. 9.In the premises, I agree with the Respondent that this application is made in bad faith without disclosing to this Court the existence of a similar order before the appellate Court. 10.The application is therefore dismissed for the reasons stated above. 11.Costs to the Respondent. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA VIDEO LINK THIS 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.H K CHEMITEI.JUDGE, FCIArb