FRANCIS KABAA vs NANCY WAMBUI & ANOTHER [1997] KECA 365 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled a succession case reopened by a court consent order could not be blocked as a repeat case, allowing the appellant's appeal with costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether Succession Cause No. 206 of 1994, filed in the High Court, was res judicata in light of the prior Succession Case No. 46 of 1981 in the District Magistrate's Court, Kikuyu, and the consent order setting that matter aside for hearing de novo.
Key legal issues
#Whether Succession Cause No. 206 of 1994 was res judicata given the earlier Succession Case No. 46 of 1981.
It was not res judicata, because the earlier suit had been set aside by consent order to be heard de novo in the High Court, and that order still subsisted.
The previous suit, Succession Case No. 46 of 1981 in the District Magistrate's Court, Kikuyu, had been set aside by an unchallenged consent order of Mbito, J., directing that the matter be heard de novo in the High Court, which materialized as Succession Cause No. 206 of 1994. Shah, J., in Civil Suit No. 1055 of 1994, had recognized that Succession Cause No. 206 of 1994 was unaffected. Amin, J. failed to distinguish Civil Case 1055 of 1994 from Succession Cause No. 206 of 1994 and erred in holding the latter res judicata.
Legal principles established
#- Where a consent order sets aside a prior succession case to be heard de novo in the High Court, the resulting succession cause is not res judicata; the order setting aside the earlier suit subsists and bars a res judicata finding.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed with costs to the appellant
- 2.The High Court ruling that Succession Cause No. 206 of 1994 was res judicata is overturned
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Succession Cause No. 206 of 1994
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the High Court (Court of Appeal statutory appellate jurisdiction); no specific constitutional or statutory provision is cited in the judgment.
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.
The short point in issue in this appeal is whether the matter before Amin, J. namely, Succession Cause No. 206 of 1994 which had been filed in the High Court was res judicata.
We are of the view that the order of Mbito, J. still subsits and it cannot therefore be said that Succession Cause No. 206 of 1994 was res judicata.
In the result the appeal succeeds with costs for the appellant. It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#Typographical errors in the judgment text: 'subsits' (for 'subsists') and a garbled sentence in which 'was' appears where 'and' is evidently intended.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "FRANCIS KABAA vs NANCY WAMBUI & ANOTHER [1997] KECA 365 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1997). Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1996. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1997/365/eng@1997-06-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.