In re Estate of Omar Chirchir Kipruto Chirchir (Deceased) (Succession Cause E007 of 2022) [2025] KEKC 14 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan Kadhi's Court dismissed objectors' late challenge to its jurisdiction because they had already participated in the case for a year without objection.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection met the Mukisa Biscuit threshold of a pure point of law
The jurisdictional ground was a pure point of law, but the ground concerning the objectors' faith was a factual issue requiring ascertainment and could not be determined via preliminary objection
Applying Mukisa Biscuit, the Court held that the ground on jurisdiction under Article 170(5) and Section 5 of the Kadhi's Court Act was arguable and could dispose of the matter. However, the objectors' assertion that they profess the Christian faith was a question of fact requiring evidence, as was the timing of any renunciation of Islam and the deceased's faith, placing the matter outside the limited scope of a preliminary objection.
Whether the objectors had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Kadhi's Court
By participating in the proceedings for about a year, filing pleadings and responses without raising the jurisdictional issue, the objectors submitted to the Court's jurisdiction and the objection was an after-thought and abuse of process
The petition was filed on 24th October 2022 and the objectors participated, including filing an objection and answers, without challenging jurisdiction. Citing re Estate of Wario Guracha Dambi, the Court held that such participation amounts to submission to jurisdiction. The maxim ignorantia legis neminem excusat precluded the objectors from escaping the consequences of their prior ignorance of the law.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law and cannot be raised where facts must be ascertained or judicial discretion exercised
- A party who has participated in proceedings before the Kadhi's Court without raising the jurisdictional objection cannot later raise it as an abuse of process
- The jurisdictional safeguards of the Kadhi's Court should not be used to subvert justice or frustrate other parties
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection against the jurisdiction of the Court is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 170(5) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Section 5 of the Kadhi's Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "In re Estate of Omar Chirchir Kipruto Chirchir (Deceased) (Succession Cause E007 of 2022) [2025] KEKC 14 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kekc/2025/14/eng@2025-04-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.