Kashoro v Musyoka (Civil Suit E018 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 366 (KLR)
The bottom line
#In a Kenyan burial dispute, a Kaloleni court gave the body to the parent who actually cared for the deceased in life, not the one who claimed customary rights.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Who will be given the body for burial?
- 2.Who meets the body preservation charges?
- 3.Who bears the costs of the suit?
Key legal issues
#Who between the deceased's parents has the right to bury the deceased
The defendant, being the parent who was legally and factually closest to the deceased in life, is entitled to the remains
The court ruled out customary law because the defendant's customary-law expert witnesses were not qualified and their proposition that children of a union without dowry belong exclusively to the mother was repugnant to justice and morality. There was no evidence of a spouse, children, or the deceased's wishes. The court applied the legal proximity doctrine: the plaintiff gave no proof of provision (no Mpesa statements, receipts or witnesses), while the defendant produced treatment notes, a chief's letter and testimony showing she resided with and cared for the deceased.
Applicability of customary law and proof of customary-law expertise
The defendant's customary-law witnesses (DW3, DW4, DW5) were not qualified as experts and their evidence on customary law was disregarded; customary law also yielded to written law guaranteeing equal parental rights
Relying on Nyariba Nyankomba v Mary Bonareri Munge and Imbogo v Imbogo, the court held that experts in customary law must first be qualified in court. None of the elders was led in evidence to establish expertise. Their claim that unpaid dowry gives the mother exclusive rights over children was found repugnant to justice and morality under section 3(2) of the Judicature Act and inconsistent with written law on equal parental rights.
Burden of proof on the plaintiff's claim of maintenance and provision
The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving he maintained and provided for the deceased
Applying section 107(1) of the Evidence Act as cited in Springboard Capital Limited v Njenga, the court found the plaintiff produced no school fees receipts, no Mpesa statements and no witnesses to corroborate his claims of cash payments, upkeep and visits by the children. His assertions therefore remained unproved.
Body preservation charges
Both parents to share equally the total preservation charges payable to Ambari Funeral Home
Since both are the deceased's parents, the court, considering the applicable charges and the duration of preservation at the interested party's facility, ordered the parties to share the charges equally. This also accords with the defendant's testimony that the plaintiff should contribute to storage charges of Kshs. 500 per day.
Costs of the suit
Each party to bear its own costs because the matter is essentially a family dispute between parents
Exercising the discretion under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, and notwithstanding that costs ordinarily follow the event, the court held that as a family matter between the parents of the deceased, it was prudent for each party to bear its own costs.
Legal principles established
#- The law recognises the persons closest to the deceased - spouse, children, parents and siblings, in that order - as having the right to bury the deceased, and the claimant must demonstrate closeness during the deceased's lifetime
- Where those legally closest to the deceased cannot agree on burial, the court may intervene and direct the place of burial
- The doctrine of legal proximity confers the right to bury on the person who demonstrates the closest proximity to the deceased
- Customary law applies only where properly proved by qualified experts and only so far as it is not repugnant to justice and morality or inconsistent with written law
- A party who alleges facts must prove them, per section 107(1) of the Evidence Act
Court orders
#- 1.The defendant (Sera Musyoka) shall pick the body of the deceased from Ambari Funeral Home for burial at a place of her choice
- 2.The plaintiff (Khaji Kashoro Mwakuni) shall be at liberty to attend the burial
- 3.Parties shall maintain peace and order during the burial
- 4.The plaintiff and the defendant shall equally share the total body preservation charges, payable to the Interested Party, Ambari Funeral Home
- 5.Each party to bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrate's court over the burial dispute, including a counter claim, guided by section 3(2) of the Judicature Act and section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Permanent injunction restraining the defendant from removing and burying the body of the deceased at Masahani Village
The court found the defendant was legally closest to the deceased and released the remains to her; the plaintiff's evidence of provision and maintenance was unsupported
Costs
Each party to bear its own 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.
That the defendant, (Sera Musyoka), shall pick the body of the deceased from Ambari Funeral Home for burial at a place of her choice.
That the plaintifi and the defendant shall equally share the total body preservation charges and the same to be paid to the Interested Party herein, Ambari Funeral Home.
That each party to bear its own costs.
The doctrine of legal proximity is based on the assumption that the decision as to the determination of the place of burial is based upon proof by the parties in the dispute of their proximity to the deceased.
I find that their position that the children of a union where dowry has not been paid are the exclusive property of the mother to be repugnant to justice and morality and inconsistent to our written law which provides that parents have equal rights to their children whether they are married or not.
The law only recognizes the persons who are closest to the deceased to have the right to bury the deceased. Those persons have been identified as the spouse, children, parents and siblings, in that order.
However, as a rule of practice, a witness should always be qualified in court, before giving his evidence and this is done by asking questions to determine, and failure to properly qualify an expert may result in the exclusion of his evidence
Issues in the judgment
#Plaintiff's marriage dates are internally inconsistent - the pleading states the marriage was 'blessed' until a date that reads as 2002 while other testimony refers to separation in 2007/2010
Paragraph numbering repeats '55' for two separate passages (costs discretion and Kuloba's text)
DW3 is described as a Kamba elder but DW5, also described as a Kamba elder, is said to be married to a Mijikenda, creating slight ambiguity over the witnesses' customary credentials
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kashoro v Musyoka (Civil Suit E018 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 366 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/366/eng@2025-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.