Geenen v Geenen (Civil Application 286 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1117 (KLR) (12 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1117 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPLICATION 286 OF 2025 S OLE KANTAI, JA JUNE 12, 2026 BETWEEN ERIK GEENEN ......................................................................................... APPLICANT AND NETTA MWIHAKI GEENEN ............................................................ RESPONDENT (Being an application for substitution against the Judgment of the High Court at Naivasha delivered on 14th October, 2025 in H.C. Succ. Cause No. E010 of 2025) RULING 1. The Motion is brought under Rules 87(2) and 87(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules where it is pleased that the Court to substitute the applicants being Philippe Alexis Geenen, Ben Josephus Geenen and Rhoda Nyambura Njoroge in place of the deceased Appellant/Applicant (Erik Geenen) as legal representatives following the grant of letters of administration intestate in Succession Cause No. E010 of 2025 issued on 14th October, 2025. The Motion is supported by grounds on its face and the affidavit of Rhoda Nyambura Njoroge (Rhoda) where it is said amongst other things that the applicant died on 13th May, 2025; the applicants have since obtained a grant of letters of administration authorizing them to represent the estate of the deceased and that it is in the interest of justice that the Motion be granted. 2. Rhoda says that the deceased was her husband who died while the appeal was pending before this Court; she and her co- applicants obtained a grant of letters of administration and that it is necessary for substitution to be made to enable them to bring the appeal to its logical conclusion. Attached to the affidavit is authority to plead given to Rhoda by her co-applicants and copy of grant of letters of administration. 3. The respondent Netta Mwihaki Geenen has not filed a replying affidavit. I have seen her written submissions which largely respond to the application for stay of execution pending appeal which application is obviously not before me as I am here as a single Judge. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1117/eng@2026-06-12 1
page 1 of 2
4. It is submitted for the respondent that substitution of a deceased party is not automatic and can only be allowed where the cause of action survives the deceased and the applicants demonstrate legal authority to represent the estate. Further, that the property in dispute was matrimonial property and the applicants lack factual foundation necessary to prosecute the appeal as they were not privy to the circumstances surrounding acquisition of the matrimonial property. I am asked to dismiss the Motion. I have considered what the respective parties say in support and opposition to the Motion for substitution. 5. Rule 87 of our rules, under which I have been moved, allow the Court to substitute a deceased party in an appeal. I note that the applicants have obtained a grant of letters of administration to represent the estate of the deceased. The appeal survives the deceased. I am satisfied that they are entitled to represent the deceased. I grant leave to Philippe Alexis Geenen, Ben Josephus Geenen and Rhoda Nyambura Njoroge to be substituted in place of the deceased (appellant). Costs of the Motion will be in the appeal. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 S. OLE KANTAI .................................. JUDGE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original Signed DEPUTY REGISTRAR https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1117/eng@2026-06-12 2
page 2 of 2