https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11557
The court held that fairness required the application not be decided solely on the prior partial oral representations, especially after a replying affidavit had been filed. It therefore adopted the affidavit as the formal response and directed that the motion be canvassed by written submissions within strict...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 11557 (KLR)
- Parties
- 1st Applicant: John Ndung’U Wainaina; 2nd Applicant: Lucy Njoki Mwaura; Respondent: Andrew Bulinga Musungu
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E065 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Directions on Respondent/applicant’s Notice of Motion Dated 19 June 2026
- Outcome
- Directions issued; application not determined on merits
- Judges
- ["DO Chepkwony"]
- Legal Topics
- Directions, Written Submissions, Right to Fair Hearing, Inherent Powers of the Court, Enforcement of Judgment, Service and Filing Timelines
- 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
John Ndung’U Wainaina
1st Applicant
Lucy Njoki Mwaura
2nd Applicant
Andrew Bulinga Musungu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Directions on Respondent/applicant’s Notice of Motion Dated 19 June 2026
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application should be determined on the basis of the partial oral objections already made
- 2 Whether the replying affidavit filed on 21 July 2026 should be adopted as the formal response to the Notice of Motion
- 3 Whether the motion should proceed by written submissions and what timelines should apply
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that fairness required the application not be decided solely on the prior partial oral representations, especially after a replying affidavit had been filed. It therefore adopted the affidavit as the formal response and directed that the motion be canvassed by written submissions within strict timelines, leaving the merits for later determination.
Court Disposition
Directions issued; application not determined on merits
Orders
- The replying affidavit sworn by John Ndung’u Wainaina on 21 July 2026 shall stand as the Appellants/Respondents’ response to the Notice of Motion dated 19 June 2026.
- The Notice of Motion dated 19 June 2026 shall be canvassed by way of written submissions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Wainaina & another v Musungu (Civil Appeal E065 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11557 (KLR) (24 July 2026) (Directions) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11557 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Murang'a Civil Appeal E065 of 2025 DO Chepkwony, J July 24, 2026 Between John Ndung’U Wainaina 1st Applicant Lucy Njoki Mwaura 2nd Applicant and Andrew Bulinga Musungu Respondent Directions 1.This matter came up for inter-partes hearing of the Respondent/Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 19th June, 2026 on 23rd July, 2026. The application seeks, among other relief, orders intended to facilitate compliance with and enforcement of the judgment of this Court in the appeal, including the surrender of the original burial permit relating to the late Caroline Wanjiku Ndung’u. However, this ruling does not determine the merits of those prayers. 2.according to the Respondent/Applicant’s counsel, Mr. Kipkosgey, the Appellants/Respondents had not filed or placed before the Court any response to the application. Counsel for the Applicants/Respondents nevertheless made oral representations indicating the grounds upon which the application would be opposed. I wish to note that the Court has since received a replying affidavit sworn by John Ndung’u Wainaina on 21st July, 2026 on behalf of both Appellants/Respondents. The affidavit substantially reflects, and develops, the position that was partly outlined before the Court. 3.It is worthnoting that in the interest of fair hearing the Court cannot fairly determine the application by reference only to the partial oral representations made on 23 July 2026. Equally, now that a formal response has been placed on record, it would be prejudicial to the Applicant to determine the application without affording him an opportunity to address the matters raised in that response. 4.Accordingly, in exercise of the Court’s inherent powers and in furtherance of the just, proportionate and expeditious determination of the application, the following directions are issued:a.The replying affidavit sworn by John Ndung’u Wainaina on 21 July, 2026 shall stand as the Appellants/Respondents’ response to the Notice of Motion dated 19 June 2026.b.The Notice of Motion dated 19 June, 2026 shall be canvassed by way of written submissions.c.The Respondent/Applicant shall file and serve his written submissions within three (3) days of the date of this ruling.d.Upon service of the Respondent/Applicant’s submissions, the Appellants/Respondents shall file and serve their written submissions within three (3) days.e.Each side’s written submissions shall be limited to four (4) pages, excluding copies of the authorities relied upon.f.The ruling on the Notice of Motion shall be delivered electronically on 12th August, 2026 through the Court Tracking System (CTS) by uploading it to the electronic case file. The parties need not attend Court for delivery unless otherwise directed.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA ELECTRONIC CASE TRACKING SYSTEM AT MURANG’A THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2026HON. DORAH O. CHEPKWONYJUDGE