Thuo (Suing as the Legal Administrator of the Estate of the Late Peris Njeri Thuo) v Mungai (Suing as a Co-Administrator of the Estate of the Late Hannah Wanjiku Mungai) (Civil Appeal (Application) 58 of 2018) [2026] KECA 271 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal replaced a deceased respondent with her legal representative after both sides agreed, even though the grant proving his authority was missing.
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 deceased respondent Peris Njeri Thuo should be substituted with the applicant Geofirey Boro Thuo in the appeal
- 2.Whether the applicant has legal capacity as the deceased's legal representative, given that the limited grant was not annexed
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant could be substituted for the deceased respondent despite not annexing the limited grant
The Court noted it could not independently ascertain the applicant's legal capacity because the limited grant was not annexed, but allowed the substitution because the parties consented to it.
The Court observed that although the applicant asserted he had obtained a limited grant, the grant was not exhibited, so the Court could not on its own verify his capacity as the deceased's legal representative. However, counsel for both parties signed a consent letter dated 16th February 2026 agreeing to the substitution, extension of time as prayed, and that costs be in the cause. On that consent, the Court allowed the application and effected the substitution.
Legal principles established
#- Where parties consent before the Court of Appeal to an extension and to substitution of a deceased party, the Court may allow the application by consent and order costs to be in the cause.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 14th November 2025 is allowed by consent of the parties
- 2.Peris Njeri Thuo (deceased) be and is hereby substituted with Geofirey Boro Thuo as a respondent in the appeal
- 3.Costs in the cause, as per the consent letter dated 16th February 2026
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent/appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over substitution of parties in a pending appeal (not expressly stated in the ruling)
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.
Accordingly, the application dated 14th November 2025 is allowed by consent of the parties. Peris Njeri Thuo (deceased) be and is hereby substituted with Geofirey Boro Thuo as a respondent in this appeal. Costs in the cause.
On record is a consent letter dated 16th February 2026 signed by counsel for both parties agreeing by consent that the period be extended as prayed and that the costs of the application be in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling does not state the case number or neutral citation, and the parties' full designations (e.g. the name of the appeal or the applicant's precise role) are not given in the text.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Thuo (Suing as the Legal Administrator of the Estate of the Late Peris Njeri Thuo) v Mungai (Suing as a Co-Administrator of the Estate of the Late Hannah Wanjiku Mungai) (Civil Appeal (Application) 58 of 2018) [2026] KECA 271 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/271/eng@2026-02-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.