[2025] KEHC 10407 (KLR)
The court found that the grounds of appeal did not touch on the issue of the Jebrock Plot, which was the subject of the previous appeal in Kakamega HCCA No 20 of 2020. Instead, the current appeal raised new issues regarding the admission of a will and new documents by the trial Kadhi, which were not previously litigated. The court held that the matter was not res judicata as the issues were distinct from those previously determined. The court also found that the preliminary objection did not raise a pure point of law sufficient to dispose of the appeal at this stage. Furthermore, the court emphasized the importance of access to justice and the right to be heard, noting that any delay in...
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 10407 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: SM; Respondent: MG
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Vihiga
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 14 July 2025
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E026 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed
- Judges
- JN Kamau
- Legal Topics
- Matrimonial Property, Res Judicata, Preliminary Objection, Admission of New Evidence
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
SM
Appellant
MG
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
- 2 Whether the preliminary objection raised by the respondent discloses a pure point of law.
- 3 Whether the admission of new documents and the issue of a will can be canvassed in the substantive appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the grounds of appeal did not touch on the issue of the Jebrock Plot, which was the subject of the previous appeal in Kakamega HCCA No 20 of 2020. Instead, the current appeal raised new issues regarding the admission of a will and new documents by the trial Kadhi, which were not previously litigated. The court held that the matter was not res judicata as the issues were distinct from those previously determined. The court also found that the preliminary objection did not raise a pure point of law sufficient to dispose of the appeal at this stage. Furthermore, the court emphasized the importance of access to justice and the right to be heard, noting that any delay in...
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed
Orders
- The respondent's preliminary objection dated and filed on 28th May 2024 is dismissed.
- Each party will bear its own costs of the preliminary objection.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment