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 AppealStruck OutEldoret Civil Application (as per Notice of Motion dated 13th January 2025)· [2025] KECA 2041 (KLR)

Rural Housing Estates v Sophia Cherotich Sisiwa & 3 others

Court of Appeal of Kenya
28 November 2025
1,154 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out an injunction application in a succession dispute because the applicant could not prove with evidence that leave to appeal had been obtained.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a Notice of Motion dated 13th January 2025, the applicant sought injunction orders barring the respondents, administrators of the estate of the late Maiakwen Sisiwa, from assuming administratorship over, dealing with, or distributing four Eldoret land parcels pursuant to an amended certificate of confirmation of grant issued in Eldoret High Court Succession Cause No. 167 of 1998, pending an intended appeal. The application was anchored on Articles 50, 159(2)(d) and 164 of the Constitution, sections 3 and 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, and Rules 5(2)(b), 44, 45 and 49 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022. The 2nd respondent raised a jurisdictional objection: no leave to appeal against the High Court decision had been sought or obtained. In a ruling delivered at Eldoret on 28th November 2025 by a bench of Warsame, Mativo and Gachoka JJA, the Court first addressed the leave question as going to the root of the application. Following its own recent decision in Mughal & Rashid v Bhola, and Newlands Surgical Clinic v Peninsula Eye Clinic, the Court held that an appeal must lie under a written law and, where leave is a prerequisite, it must be sought and obtained; leave is a jurisdictional fact. Although counsel asserted from the bar that leave had been granted on 13th June 2025, no affidavit or documentary evidence supported that claim, and the Court held that an advocate cannot give evidence through submissions from the bar. The application was accordingly struck out with costs to the respondents. The Court made no finding on the merits of the intended appeal or on the arguability and nugatory principles.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdictional prerequisite of leave to appeal in succession matters

Holding

Without proof that leave to appeal was sought and granted, the Court lacks jurisdiction and the application is incompetent and must be struck out

Reasoning

The Court adopted its prior decision in Mughal & Rashid v Bhola holding that a right of appeal exists only where expressly provided by statute, and that where leave is required it must be sought and obtained in the first instance or granted by the Court of Appeal if refused. Citing Newlands Surgical Clinic, leave is a jurisdictional fact. No evidence of the grant of leave was placed before the Court; counsel's assertion from the bar had no probative value.

p. 3
02

Whether counsel's oral statement from the bar can prove a fact

Holding

Assertions by an advocate from the bar on evidentiary matters are unprocedural and lack probative value; affidavit evidence must be adduced

Reasoning

When asked whether leave had been granted, Mr. Ogutu stated from the bar that leave was granted on 13th June 2025. The Court held that an advocate cannot give evidence on behalf of a client through submissions from the bar; the applicant ought to have attached affidavit evidence to prove the grant of leave.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An appeal to the Court of Appeal must lie under a written law; where leave is required, it must be sought and obtained before the appeal is competent - leave is a jurisdictional fact without which the Court has no jurisdiction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 13th January 2025 is struck out
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Eldoret
Succession Cause No. 167 of 1998 (In the matter of the estate of the late Maiakwen Sisiwa, deceased)
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 50, 159(2)(d) and 164 of the Constitution; sections 3 and 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Rules 5(2)(b), 44, 45 and 49 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rural Housing Estates v Sophia Cherotich Sisiwa & 3 others", Case Analysis (2025). Eldoret Civil Application (as per Notice of Motion dated 13th January 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2041/eng@2025-11-28

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