Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealOtherNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KECA 1431 (KLR)

Irene Wangari Wanjohi (suing As Personal Representative of Stanley Wanjohi Mathenge) v Fg Wahome & 4 others

Court of Appeal
1 August 2025
WKW. Karanja
209 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal halted an out-of-time appeal because the applicant, suing as a deceased party's personal representative, had no proof she was formally substituted.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a single-judge application before the Court of Appeal at Nyeri, decided by W. Karanja, JA on 1st August 2025. Irene Wangari Wanjohi sought leave to appeal out of time against a ruling delivered by Olola, J on 9th May 2024, indicating that she was suing as the personal representative of Stanley Wanjohi Mathenge. On reviewing the proceedings, the court observed that the trial proceedings, including the impugned ruling, had been conducted in the name of Stanley Wanjohi Mathenge as plaintiff/applicant. There was no application for substitution of the plaintiff, who was said to be deceased, and no evidence before the Court of Appeal showing that the applicant had been substituted in his place. In the absence of such evidence, the court held that the applicant lacked the requisite locus standi to file the intended appeal and to present the application, and that the court was therefore unable to proceed. Rather than striking out or dismissing the application, the court adjourned it and directed the applicant to avail evidence demonstrating her substitution as a party in place of the late Stanley Wanjohi Mathenge. The court ordered that the day's costs be costs in the application. The substantive question of whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted was left undecided pending proof of the applicant's capacity to sue. This is an interlocutory, single-judge procedural ruling and does not bind lower courts on any substantive proposition beyond the principle that a person purporting to sue as a personal representative must show substitution before an appellate application can be entertained.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an applicant suing as personal representative of a deceased party has locus standi to seek extension of time to appeal without proof of substitution

Holding

The court cannot proceed with such an application absent evidence of substitution; the applicant lacks the requisite locus standi

Reasoning

The trial proceedings, including the ruling of 9th May 2024, were in the name of Stanley Wanjohi Mathenge as plaintiff/applicant. The applicant claimed to sue as his personal representative, alleged he was deceased, but produced no application for substitution and no evidence of substitution. Without substitution, she could not demonstrate capacity to prosecute the intended appeal or present the extension-of-time application.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant purporting to act as personal representative of a deceased party must first demonstrate that she has been formally substituted as a party in the proceedings before the court can entertain her application

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application was adjourned
  2. 2.The applicant to avail evidence to show that she has been substituted as a party in place of the late Stanley Wanjohi Mathenge
  3. 3.Today's costs be in the application
On appeal from
High Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal out of time (extension of time application under the Court of Appeal's procedural framework; no specific provision cited)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Irene Wangari Wanjohi (suing As Personal Representative of Stanley Wanjohi Mathenge) v Fg Wahome & 4 others", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1431/eng@2025-08-01

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