Sabisia v Kang’ata & 5 others (Constitutional Petition E006 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 5892 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Ruling)

Sabisia v Kang’ata & 5 others (Constitutional Petition E006 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 5892 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Ruling)

The applicant failed to demonstrate proper service of the petition and application on the respondents and interested parties as required by the Civil Procedure Rules; therefore, the court cannot proceed to determine the application on its merits until proper service is effected.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 5892 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant/petitioner: Rajiv Shem Sabisia; 1st Respondent: Irungu Kang’ata; 2nd Respondent: County Government of Murang’a; 3rd Respondent: Medical Superintendent Murang’a Level 5 Hospital; 5th Respondent: Petite Mukami Ng’a Nga; 1st Interested Party: The Hon. Attorney General; 2nd Interested Party: Assistant Chief Kiharu Sub Location
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
30 April 2026
Case Number
Constitutional Petition E006 of 2026
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Application—ruling on Service of Process
Outcome
Application not determined on merits; applicant granted final opportunity to effect proper service.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Burial Rights, Post Mortem and DNA Orders, Damages for Constitutional Violations
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Service of Process Burial Rights Post Mortem and DNA Orders Damages for Constitutional Violations

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajiv Shem Sabisia

Applicant/petitioner

Irungu Kang’ata

1st Respondent

County Government of Murang’a

2nd Respondent

Medical Superintendent Murang’a Level 5 Hospital

3rd Respondent

Petite Mukami Ng’a Nga

5th Respondent

The Hon. Attorney General

1st Interested Party

Assistant Chief Kiharu Sub Location

2nd Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Application—ruling on Service of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proper service of the petition and application was effected on the respondents and interested parties
  2. 2 Whether the court should grant interlocutory reliefs sought by the applicant in the absence of proof of service

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate proper service of the petition and application on the respondents and interested parties as required by the Civil Procedure Rules; therefore, the court cannot proceed to determine the application on its merits until proper service is effected.

Court Disposition

Application not determined on merits; applicant granted final opportunity to effect proper service.

Orders

  • Applicant to effect proper service of the petition and application on all respondents and interested parties within fourteen (14) days.
  • Where possible, personal service to be effected.