Wairagu (Administrator of the Estate of Lazarus Wanjohi Wairagu-(Deceased) v County Government of Kajiado & 2 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 260 of 2019) [2025] KECA 1838 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to revive an appeal that automatically died when no one applied to substitute the deceased appellant within one year of his death.
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 applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from applying for substitution and revival of the abated appeal within the prescribed time
- 2.Whether the abated appeal, Civil Appeal No. 260 of 2019, should be revived and the applicant substituted as appellant
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from reviving the abated appeal
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause: no substitution was sought within one year of the deceased's death, the applicant offered an uncontroverted-against explanation of family unawareness of the appeal, and took almost two years after the Limited Grant to file the motion without explaining that delay or showing the grant had been confirmed.
The court applied Rule 102(2) and (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022. The appeal abated by operation of law on 8th November 2021, one year after death. The explanation that the family was unaware of the appeal was undercut by the uncontroverted fact that the deceased, being elderly, was always accompanied to court by relatives. Further, the applicant gave no reason for the near two-year delay between obtaining the Limited Grant on 21st August 2023 and filing the motion on 29th May 2025, and did not show that the grant due for confirmation on 5th February 2024 was ever confirmed.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal does not abate on the death of a party, but if no application for substitution is made within twelve months of death, the appeal abates; it may be revived only where it is proved that the legal representative was prevented by sufficient cause from continuing the appeal
- Where sufficient cause is proved, the court shall revive an abated appeal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it deems fit; the burden of proving sufficient cause rests on the applicant
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's motion dated 29th May 2025 is dismissed in its entirety with no order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 102 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022 (application before a single judge under sub-rule 4)
Relief refused
#Revival and reinstatement of Civil Appeal No. 260 of 2019 for hearing and determination on merit
Applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in seeking substitution after abatement
Substitution of Patrick Ngugi Wairagu as appellant in place of the deceased Lazarus Wanjohi Wairagu
Unexplained delay of almost two years after obtaining the Limited Grant, and the Limited Grant was due for confirmation on 5th February 2024 with no evidence of confirmation
Costs
No order as to costs - the motion was dismissed 'in its entirety with no order as to costs'
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.
In the instant case it is indeed not in dispute that the deceased appellant passed away on 7th November 2020 and no application for substitution was made within 1 year of his demise and by operation of the law therefore, the suit abated on 8th November 2021.
the applicant has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of this Court that he was prevented by suficient cause from filing the present application for substitution and revival of the appeal on time and accordingly, the applicant’s motion dated 29th May 2025, is for dismissal.
Accordingly, the applicant’s motion dated 29th May 2025, is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed in its entirety with no order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The names of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents are not stated anywhere in the ruling; parties are referred to only by designation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wairagu (Administrator of the Estate of Lazarus Wanjohi Wairagu-(Deceased) v County Government of Kajiado & 2 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 260 of 2019) [2025] KECA 1838 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal No. 260 of 2019 - Nairobi (Motion dated 29th May 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1838/eng@2025-11-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.