In re Estate of Lihasi Bidali alias Charles Lihasi Bidali (Deceased)
The bottom line
#Supreme Court dismisses appeal for lack of jurisdiction in succession dispute.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court of Kenya dismissed an appeal from a son who challenged a Court of Appeal decision that recognized two women as widows of his late father. The Court found that the appeal did not raise a genuine constitutional question but only disputed factual findings about marriage and paternity. Under Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court only hears appeals involving interpretation or application of the Constitution, not routine factual disagreements. The Court therefore lacked jurisdiction and ordered the security deposit refunded to the appellant.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the court has jurisdiction under article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution to determine the appeal.
- 2.If the answer to i) above is in the affirmative, whether the Court of Appeal erred in its decision of June 14, 2024.
Key legal issues
#Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction under article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution to hear an appeal where the Court of Appeal made reference to constitutional provisions but the core grievance concerns factual and evidentiary matters.
The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction because the appeal does not involve the interpretation or application of the Constitution; the constitutional provisions were neither the subject of novel interpretation nor applied in a manner raising substantial controversy.
The court applied the test from Rutongot Farm Ltd v Kenya Forest Service, asking what was in issue at the lower courts and whether they disposed of the matter after interpreting or applying the Constitution. The High Court's determination turned on factual issues of marriage and paternity, not constitutional interpretation. The Court of Appeal's reference to articles 20 and 27 was merely to buttress its interpretation of section 3(5) of the Law of Succession Act, not to resolve a constitutional controversy. The appellant's grievance was essentially a challenge to concurrent factual findings, which does not meet the threshold under article 163(4)(a).
Whether the Court of Appeal erred by reframing the issue of section 3(5) of the Law of Succession Act and applying articles 20 and 27 of the Constitution without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard.
The Supreme Court did not determine this issue on the merits because it lacked jurisdiction.
The court found that the core of the appellant's grievance lay in contesting concurrent factual and evidentiary matters, not in a constitutional question requiring the Supreme Court's intervention. Therefore, it declined to address the merits of this issue.
Legal principles established
#- Mere citation of constitutional provisions does not give the Supreme Court jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a).
- The Supreme Court is not a third layer of appeal for factual disputes.
- Jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) requires that the lower courts actually interpreted or applied the Constitution, not just mentioned it.
- Concurrent factual findings by the High Court and Court of Appeal cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court unless a constitutional issue is involved.
- The Supreme Court will not reevaluate evidence or facts already settled by lower courts.
Court orders
#- 1.The petition of appeal dated July 18, 2024 and filed on July 19, 2024 be and is hereby dismissed.
- 2.There shall be no order as to costs of the appeal.
- 3.We hereby direct that the sum of Kshs 6,000= deposited as security for costs upon lodging of this appeal, be refunded to the appellant.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Civil Appeal No E504 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
Relief refused
#Setting aside the Court of Appeal judgment and allowing the appeal
The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction under article 163(4)(a) as the appeal did not involve the interpretation or application of the Constitution.
Declaration that Jedidah Kisia Lihasi is the only legal widow
The court declined to address the merits for lack of jurisdiction.
Declaration that children of Grace and Magdaline not named in the will were not children of the deceased
The court declined to address the merits for lack of jurisdiction.
Declaration that this was not a proper case for allowing dependency applications
The court declined to address the merits for lack of jurisdiction.
Costs
There shall be no order as to costs of the appeal.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
mere allegation(s) of constitutional violations or citation of constitutional provisions, or issues on appeal which involves little or nothing to do with the application or interpretation of the Constitution does not bring an appeal within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution.
This court had not been conceived as just another layer in the appellate - court structure. Not all decisions of the Court of Appeal are subject to appeal before this court.
The petition of appeal dated July 18, 2024 and filed on July 19, 2024 be and is hereby dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs of the appeal.
We hereby direct that the sum of Kshs 6,000= deposited as security for costs upon lodging of this appeal, be refunded to the appellant.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Limit Supreme Court appeals to constitutional issues
When appealing to the Supreme Court under Article 163(4)(a), ensure the core dispute involves constitutional interpretation, not just factual disagreements. Mere citation of constitutional provisions or framing a case as a constitutional violation will not suffice. Focus on demonstrating that the lower courts resolved a novel or controversial constitutional question, not just applied statutory law to facts.
Strengthen estate documentation to avoid disputes
This case underscores the importance of clear, legally sound documentation for marriages and paternity in succession planning. Businesses involved in family enterprises or trusts should ensure that spousal and child relationships are properly recorded and legally recognized. Disputes over factual findings like marriage status can delay estate distribution and incur costly litigation that may not reach the Supreme Court.
Understand limited Supreme Court access for inheritance disputes
If you are unhappy with a Court of Appeal decision in a succession case, you cannot automatically appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only hears cases that involve a genuine constitutional question, not disputes over evidence or findings of fact. To challenge factual findings, you must exhaust all other remedies within the lower court system.
Frequently asked questions
#Can I appeal to the Supreme Court of Kenya if I disagree with the Court of Appeal's factual findings in a succession case?+
No. The Supreme Court only hears appeals under Article 163(4)(a) if the case involves interpretation or application of the Constitution. Disagreeing with factual findings, like whether a marriage existed, is not enough. You must show a real constitutional issue was decided.
What is Article 163(4)(a) of the Kenyan Constitution?+
Article 163(4)(a) gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Court of Appeal if the case involves the interpretation or application of the Constitution. The Court has clarified that simply mentioning constitutional provisions does not satisfy this requirement.
What happened in Charles Lihasi Bidali v Grace Wambui Bidali in Kenya?+
A son challenged a Court of Appeal decision that recognized two women as widows of his father. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal because it only disputed factual findings about marriage and paternity, not a constitutional question. The Court said it lacked jurisdiction.
How does the Kenyan Supreme Court decide if it has jurisdiction in a succession case?+
The Court examines whether the lower courts actually interpreted or applied the Constitution to resolve the case. If the case turned on evidence and facts, not constitutional interpretation, the Supreme Court will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "In re Estate of Lihasi Bidali alias Charles Lihasi Bidali (Deceased)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition E030 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2025/56/eng@2025-09-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.