Elias v Njoka; Njeru (Proposed Respondent) (Civil Appeal (Application) 10 of 2020) [2025] KECA 952 (KLR)
The bottom line
#When one party to a Kenyan appeal dies, the appeal survives against everyone else, but substituting a family member requires a proper grant for that appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the full court on a reference under rule 57 may interfere with the single judge's ruling of 16th May 2023
- 2.Whether the appeal abated entirely upon the death of the 1st respondent under rule 102(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, or only against the deceased respondent
- 3.Whether Jecinta Kiura Njeru could be substituted as 1st respondent on the strength of a limited grant of letters of administration ad litem issued for a separate suit
Key legal issues
#Standard for interfering with a single judge's decision on a reference under rule 57
The full court cannot substitute its own discretion for that of the single judge; interference is only permissible on the established grounds of misdirection, failure to consider relevant matters, consideration of irrelevant matters, or a plainly wrong decision.
The court adopted the principle from Habo Agencies Limited v Wilfred Odhiambo Musingo that a reference is not an appeal and that the full court's disagreement with the outcome is insufficient. The single judge exercises the court's discretion, and rule 57 confines the full bench to reviewing the process and correctness of that exercise, not re-exercising it afresh.
Scope of abatement under rule 102(2) where one of several respondents dies
The appeal abated only against the deceased 1st respondent; it remains active against the remaining twenty (20) respondents. The single judge erred in overlooking this and in leaving the position of the other respondents unclear.
Abatement operates only against the estate of the deceased party. Since twenty other respondents were alive, the single judge's ruling that the appeal had abated under rule 102(2) could only apply to the deceased party. The full court found the reference merited to that limited extent, allowing the appellant to proceed against the surviving respondents.
Substitution of a widow on a limited grant ad litem
Substitution could not be granted because the limited grant was issued for substitution in a different suit (ELC No. E012 of 2021 (O.S.)) and did not represent the deceased's estate for the purposes of this appeal.
The court agreed with the single judge that a legal representative for appeal purposes must hold either a general grant or a grant explicitly limited to the appeal. A grant ad litem confined to another case does not suffice. To that extent the single judge's findings could not be faulted and the substitution application fails.
Legal principles established
#- On a reference under rule 57, a full bench may only interfere with a single judge's discretion where the judge took into account an irrelevant matter, failed to take into account a relevant matter, misapprehended the law or evidence, or where the decision was plainly wrong; a reference is not an appeal.
- An appeal abates only against the deceased party; where there are multiple respondents and only one dies, the appeal does not abate against the surviving respondents.
- Substitution of a deceased party's widow as a party to an appeal is permissible only where she holds a general grant of letters of administration or a grant expressly limited for the purposes of that appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is allowed only to the extent that the appeal has not abated against the other twenty (20) respondents, and the appellant is at liberty to pursue the appeal against them
- 2.Costs to abide by the outcome of the appeal, the application having been unopposed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya (decision of a single judge, Muchelule, JA)
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 57 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022 (reference to the full court from a decision of a single judge)
Relief refused
#Substitution of Jecinta Kiura Njeru as 1st respondent in place of the deceased Faustino Njeru Njoka
The grant she held was a limited grant ad litem relating to a separate suit (ELC No. E012 of 2021 (O.S.)), not a general appointment or a grant limited for the purposes of this appeal
Costs
Costs do abide by the outcome 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.
We, therefore, find the reference merited only to the extent that the appeal has not abated against the other twenty (20) respondents, and the appellant is at liberty to pursue the appeal against them.
a reference under that rule is not an appeal to the full court
The suit, however, abated only against the deceased and not entirely since the other twenty (20) respondents are alive.
In the circumstances, we order that costs do abide by the outcome of the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to 'the widow of the 1st appellant' where the context indicates the 1st respondent; the deceased party is elsewhere described as the 1st respondent.
The coram listing appears irregular: the judge's names are printed as 'S. ole KANTAI', 'J. LESIIT' and 'ALI-ARONI' with the designation 'JUDGE OF APPEAL' run together with the third name, making the exact rendering of the third judge uncertain.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Elias v Njoka; Njeru (Proposed Respondent) (Civil Appeal (Application) 10 of 2020) [2025] KECA 952 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/952/eng@2025-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.