REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 2111 OF 2005 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF WANJIKU KARUGURO (DECEASED) RULING 1. On 6th February 2015 a ruling was delivered herein dismissing an application dated 24 th July 2009. On 19th March 2015, the applicant in the application of 24 th July 2009 filed an application herein, dated 19th March 2015, seeking stay of execution and leave to appeal against the orders made on 6 th February 2015. The application was served, and replies filed. 2. Directions were taken on 7th June 2016 on the disposal of the said application, by way of written submissions. The parties have complied and filed detailed written submissions, complete with authorities to support their respective positions. 3. I have carefully read through the application, the affidavits on record, the written submissions by both sides and the authorities cited. I note that this is a personal law matter. The applicant is entitled to have a second opinion. The law provides for appeal, and the applicant has a right of appeal. 4. I am inclined to grant the orders sought. I hereby grant leave to the applicant to file appeal at the Court of Appeal against the decision of this court made herein on 6 th February 2015. Leave shall be for thirty (30) days. I also order stay of execution of the consent recorded herein on 24 th June 2009. The said stay shall be for thirty (30) days. Costs shall be in the cause. 5. I have noted that none of the assets herein are situated within Nairobi, but at Kihara, Kiambaa, which is within Kiambu County. I shall accordingly order that the matter be transferred to the High Court of Kenya at Kiambu for disposal of any outstanding business. DATED and SIGNED at NAIROBI this 3RD DAY OF MAY, 2017. W. MUSYOKA JUDGE DELIVERED and SIGNED this 5TH DAY OF MAY, 2017. M. MUIGAI JUDGE
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.