https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1117
The court held that the appeal survived the deceased appellant and that the applicants, having obtained letters of administration intestate, were entitled to represent the estate; substitution was therefore allowed under Rule 87.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KECA 1117 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Erik Geenen; Respondent: Netta Mwihaki Geenen
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 286 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application for Substitution in an Appeal / Ruling by a Single Judge of the Court of Appeal on Substitution of Deceased Appellant
- Outcome
- Application allowed
- Judges
- ["S ole Kantai"]
- Legal Topics
- Substitution of Deceased Party, Letters of Administration, Survival of Cause of Action, Representation of Estate, Court of Appeal Rules Rule 87
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Erik Geenen
Applicant
Netta Mwihaki Geenen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Substitution in an Appeal / Ruling by a Single Judge of the Court of Appeal on Substitution of Deceased Appellant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the deceased appellant could be substituted by the administrators of his estate
- 2 Whether the appeal survived the deceased appellant
- 3 Whether the applicants had legal authority to represent the estate
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the appeal survived the deceased appellant and that the applicants, having obtained letters of administration intestate, were entitled to represent the estate; substitution was therefore allowed under Rule 87.
Court Disposition
Application allowed
Orders
- Leave granted to Philippe Alexis Geenen, Ben Josephus Geenen and Rhoda Nyambura Njoroge to be substituted in place of the deceased appellant, Erik Geenen.
- Costs of the motion to abide the outcome of the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Geenen v Geenen (Civil Application 286 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1117 (KLR) (12 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1117 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Nairobi Civil Application 286 of 2025 S ole Kantai, JA June 12, 2026 Between Erik Geenen Applicant and Netta Mwihaki Geenen Respondent (Being an application for substitution against the Judgment of the High Court at Naivasha delivered on 14th October, 2025 in H.C. Succ. Cause No. E010 of 2025) Ruling 1.The Motion is brought under Rules 87(2) and 87(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules where it is pleased that the Court to substitute the applicants being Philippe Alexis Geenen, Ben Josephus Geenen and Rhoda Nyambura Njoroge in place of the deceased Appellant/Applicant (Erik Geenen) as legal representatives following the grant of letters of administration intestate in Succession Cause No. E010 of 2025 issued on 14th October, 2025. The Motion is supported by grounds on its face and the affidavit of Rhoda Nyambura Njoroge (Rhoda) where it is said amongst other things that the applicant died on 13th May, 2025; the applicants have since obtained a grant of letters of administration authorizing them to represent the estate of the deceased and that it is in the interest of justice that the Motion be granted. 2.Rhoda says that the deceased was her husband who died while the appeal was pending before this Court; she and her co- applicants obtained a grant of letters of administration and that it is necessary for substitution to be made to enable them to bring the appeal to its logical conclusion. Attached to the affidavit is authority to plead given to Rhoda by her co-applicants and copy of grant of letters of administration. 3.The respondent Netta Mwihaki Geenen has not filed a replying affidavit. I have seen her written submissions which largely respond to the application for stay of execution pending appeal which application is obviously not before me as I am here as a single Judge. 4.It is submitted for the respondent that substitution of a deceased party is not automatic and can only be allowed where the cause of action survives the deceased and the applicants demonstrate legal authority to represent the estate. Further, that the property in dispute was matrimonial property and the applicants lack factual foundation necessary to prosecute the appeal as they were not privy to the circumstances surrounding acquisition of the matrimonial property. I am asked to dismiss the Motion.I have considered what the respective parties say in support and opposition to the Motion for substitution. 5.Rule 87 of our rules, under which I have been moved, allow the Court to substitute a deceased party in an appeal. I note that the applicants have obtained a grant of letters of administration to represent the estate of the deceased. The appeal survives the deceased. I am satisfied that they are entitled to represent the deceased. I grant leave to Philippe Alexis Geenen, Ben Josephus Geenen and Rhoda Nyambura Njoroge to be substituted in place of the deceased (appellant). Costs of the Motion will be in the appeal. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026S. OLE KANTAI.................................. JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the originalSignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR