In re Estate of Lukaroto Njoroge alias Richard Njoroge alias Lokarito Kamu (Decesaed) (Miscellaneous Succession Cause E031 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 14754 (KLR) (29 September 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 14754 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIAMBU MISCELLANEOUS SUCCESSION CAUSE E031 OF 2025 DO CHEPKWONY, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2025 BETWEEN MARGARET WANGUI RICHARD ...................................................... APPLICANT AND HANNAH WAMATHWE ............................................................. 1ST RESPONDENT PATRICK KAMAU RICHARD .................................................. 2ND RESPONDENT LAND REGISTRAR, KIAMBU ................................................... 3RD RESPONDENT RULING 1. This matter came up for mention on 24th September, 2025 for parties to confirm compliance of directions issued on 24th June, 2025 in respect of the Notice of Motion application dated 21st June, 2025. 2. According to the Applicant, she served the Respondents and Beneficiaries with submissions as directed by the court. She confirmed that the two Beneficiaries have also filed their responses and written submissions. She then filed a further affidavit. 3. M/S Njuguna Macharia confirmed that he had been instructed before, requested to be mapped and had just been mapped. He then sought for leave to file a response alongside a Notice of Preliminary Objection in respect of the application dated 21st June, 2025. 4. In response, the Applicant stated that the Respondent had not clearly indicated whey they were yet to file their responses and submissions when the court’s directions were clear. She insisted on being issued a ruling date. Counsel for the Respondents told court that they were yet to be served with the responses or written submissions by the other parties. She pointed out that the matter involves an Estate of a Deceased person and orders being sought have serious implications whereby it would only be fair and https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/14754/eng@2025-09-29 1
page 1 of 3
just that the 1st and 2nd Respondents be given an opportunity to put in their responses to enable the court fully address the issues raised and the rights of the parties herein. She further pointed out that the court’s jurisdiction was in question. 5. Having listened to the Applicant and counsel for the Respondents on whether or not to grant the Respondents leave to file and serve their response(s), counsel has considered the reasons advanced by either party on the same and finds that the central issue for determination revolves around the right to fair hearing, which is guaranteed under Article 50 of the Constitution and it stipulates that:50. (1) Every person has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair and public hearing before a court or, if appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or body. 6. In the instant case, though not explicit in her sentiments over the failure to file a response, it can be deduced that the Applicant has urged this Court to strictly enforce the directions issued on 24th June, 2025 and issue a ruling date irregardless of whether the Respondents have filed their responses or not. 7. The Applicant, on the other hand, has pleaded for leave to file and serve their responses. The right to fair hearing is a fundamental freedom that cannot be limited and it encompasses the right to be heard on merit and the right to legal representation which is limited to access to justice and fair administration of justice. 8. In this case, I have considered the time when the Respondents’ counsel was instructed by the Respondents and find the period insufficient for them to file their response, and yet the Respondents have a right to representation. 9. And while I appreciate that court’s directions are never issued in vain, this must be complied with, this cannot weigh down the right to be heard, which is a non-derogable right under the Constitution, as it is just a technicality that can be compensated with costs. 10. Therefore, this Court finds that it will serve justice by according all parties herein a right to present their respective cases to be ventilated for the court to arrive at an informed and fair decision for all parties. 11. Consequently, the following directions issue:a. The Applicant and Beneficiaries to serve the Respondents with the respective pleadings by close of business today. b. The Respondents’ be and are hereby granted leave to file and serve their responses alongside written submissions within fourteen (14) days from the date hereof. c. The Applicant and Beneficiaries be at liberty to file further supplementary affidavit and or written submissions within seven (7) days of being served by the Respondents. d. Mention on 21st October, 2025 for parties to confirm e. compliance and directions on ruling date. It is so ordered. RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED AT KIAMBU THIS 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 2025. D. O. CHEPKWONY https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/14754/eng@2025-09-29 2
page 2 of 3
JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/14754/eng@2025-09-29 3
page 3 of 3