[2025] KEHC 8120 (KLR)
The court held that the previous order by Lady Justice Achode directing the matter to proceed de novo remains unchallenged and in force. The Respondent's concerns regarding the death of a key witness do not override the standing court order. The court emphasized that if the Respondent wishes to rely on the deceased...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 8120 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Lucy Wanjiku Kyambuthi; Respondent: Peter Ngugi Kiambuthi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 99 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Commence Hearing De Novo
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Succession Proceedings, Hearing De Novo, Adoption of Evidence, Estate Administration
- 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
Lucy Wanjiku Kyambuthi
Applicant
Peter Ngugi Kiambuthi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Commence Hearing De Novo
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should grant leave for the hearing to commence de novo as previously directed by the court.
- 2 Whether the death of a key witness (Margaret Wambui Kiambuthi) precludes the matter from being heard afresh.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the previous order by Lady Justice Achode directing the matter to proceed de novo remains unchallenged and in force. The Respondent's concerns regarding the death of a key witness do not override the standing court order. The court emphasized that if the Respondent wishes to rely on the deceased witness's prior evidence, he may seek the court's leave or obtain consent from the other parties at the appropriate stage. Accordingly, the application to commence the hearing afresh is allowed, and the matter is to proceed before the designated judge to its logical conclusion.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The application is allowed; the matter to begin afresh as directed by the court on 4th June 2019.
- The matter to be heard and determined by Honorable Lady Justice Kendagor to its logical conclusion.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
In re Estate of Reuben Kiambuthi alias Jones Reuben Kyambuthi (Deceased) (Succession Cause 99 of 1997) [2025] KEHC 8120 (KLR) (Family) (12 June 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 8120 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Family
Succession Cause 99 of 1997
HK Chemitei, J
June 12, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE REUBEN KIAMBUTHI alias JONES REUBEN KYAMBUTHI (DECEASED)
Between
Lucy Wanjiku Kyambuthi
Applicant
and
Peter Ngugi Kiambuthi
Respondent
Ruling
1. In her application dated 5th February 2024 the Applicant seeks orders that:-(a)Leave be granted to parties to adopt the orders in this matter to commence the hearing de novo following the directions by Honorable Lady Justice Achode dated 4th July 2019. (b)Costs of the application.
2. The application is based on the grounds thereof and the Applicant’s sworn affidavit dated the same date.
3. The Applicant’s contention is that the matter ought to proceed in the manner directed by Achode J (as she then was) in which she ordered that the matter proceeds de novo. She has also raised several concerns about the veracity of the courts proceedings earlier undertaken.
4. She deponed that several paragraphs of the proceedings are inaccurate and does not point to the evidence so far adduced.
5. The Respondent on his part has opposed the application arguing that one of the witnesses, namely her mother Margret Wambui Kiambuthi has since passed on and therefore the matter cannot be permitted to begin afresh.
6. The court has perused the application as well as the submissions by the Applicant.
7. What is evidently clear is that Lady Justice Achode (as she then was) after hearing the parties on 4th June 2019 directed that the same ought to begin afresh. That order still remains intact. The Respondent never challenged it by way of review or appeal.
8. The court is conscious of the Respondent’s fears concerning the demise of the widow Margaret. Her evidence of course cannot be procured afresh.
9. However, this cannot stop the matter beginning afresh as the court had directed. If there is any need to adopt the evidence of Margaret at the appropriate time then the Respondent can move the court or get a consent from the other parties.
10. The matter however must be allowed to proceed as directed.
11. In the premises, the application is allowed, the matter to begin afresh as directed by the court on 4th June 2019.
12. The matter to be heard and determined by Honorable Lady Justice Kendagor to its logical conclusion.
conclusionsDATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK AT NAIROBI THIS 12TH JUNE 2025. H K CHEMITEIJUDGE