Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Application No. 68 of 2017 (UR 46/2017)· [2018] KECA 842 (KLR)

William Kipkosgei Serem v Tabarno Busienei alias Martha Jepkimo Busienei & Another

Court of Appeal
15 February 2018
799 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to revive a dead land appeal because the applicant, who knew of the death, delayed and used the process in bad faith.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Eldoret (Githinji, Okwengu and Mohammed, JJ.A.) dismissing an application under Rule 99(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules to revive Civil Appeal No. 352 of 2014, which had abated on the death of the appellant, Susan Kiprono. The underlying High Court judgment of 6th October 2014 in Kitale Civil Suit No. 119 of 2012 cancelled her title to land parcel Trans Nzoia/Sinyerere/36 and awarded portions to the two respondents. The applicant, her legal representative, attributed the failure to substitute in time to the lengthy process of obtaining letters of administration. The court found, however, that the applicant had held a power of attorney from the deceased, conducted her defence at trial, and was aware of her death, yet obtained no interim grant to prosecute the appeal. Instead he pursued succession cause No. 26 of 2016, secured a confirmed grant and registered himself as heir to the entire disputed land, including the portions awarded to the respondents, who then filed a fresh suit and obtained an interlocutory injunction against him. The court held that the applicant was not prevented by sufficient cause from continuing the appeal, that the appeal's character had changed since the probate decision had superseded the judgment appealed from, and that the application was brought in bad faith and amounted to an abuse of the process of the court. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Sufficient cause for revival of an abated appeal

Holding

Delay in obtaining letters of administration is not by itself sufficient cause, particularly where the applicant acted as the deceased's attorney during the trial and knew of her death

Reasoning

The applicant held a power of attorney, defended and testified for the deceased, was aware of her death, yet did not seek an interim grant to prosecute the appeal. Instead he pursued succession and registered himself as heir to the entire suit land. His conduct negated sufficient cause and evidenced bad faith, disentitling him to revival of the abated appeal.

p. 2
02

Abuse of process

Holding

An application for revival brought to resuscitate a superseded appeal after self-help registration of the disputed land is an abuse of the process of the court

Reasoning

The applicant caused himself to be registered as heir to the whole land, including portions awarded to the respondents, prompting a fresh suit and an injunction in the Environment and Land Court. Reviving the appeal would serve that improper purpose; the court therefore dismissed the application as bad faith litigation.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An abated appeal may be revived under Rule 99(3) only where the legal representative proves sufficient cause preventing continuation of the appeal
  • Revival will be refused where the applicant's conduct shows bad faith and abuse of process, including where the judgment has been superseded by a probate court's transmission of the suit land

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for revival of the abated appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 99(2)
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 99(3)
On appeal from
High Court
Kitale Civil Suit No. 119 of 2012
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 99(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "William Kipkosgei Serem v Tabarno Busienei alias Martha Jepkimo Busienei & Another", Case Analysis (2018). Civil Application No. 68 of 2017 (UR 46/2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/842/eng@2018-02-15

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.