1. The appeal before the court arose from the decision of the Hon. Abdiaziz Maalim Mohamed, SPK, dated 24th August 2024. By that decision, the learned Kadhi dismissed the appellant’s preliminary objection to the effect that, being a Muslim, she did not, of itself, submit to the jurisdiction of the Kadhi’s court. The Court found that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.
2. The appellant filed, together with the Memorandum of Appeal, an application vide which she sought to stay the proceedings in the court below. The said application was heard on 19th May 2025. This delivered an ex-tempore ruling on the said date, in which it stayed proceedings in the Kadhi Court Succession Cause No. E032 of 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, and ordered that all rent collected from properties belonging to the estate of the deceased be deposited into the court account.
3. The appellant filed an application dated 27th October 2025, by which she seeks to have Salma Abdalla prevented from collecting rent accruing in respect of the estate’s properties pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The appellant specifically mentioned a property, namely a house without land at Majengo on Plot No. XIII/43. Although it was alleged that Salma collects rent, no evidence to support the allegation was provided.
4. On her part, Salma Abdalla denied the allegation. She averred that the appellant had failed to comply with the court orders and that the application was an abuse of the court process.
5. Although the parties were directed to file written submissions, only the appellant did. Her submissions are dated 17th March 2026.
6. I have considered the application. In my view, the application is not helpful. The court issued clear orders that rent accruing in respect of the estate property be deposited with the court. It was incumbent on the appellant to provide cogent documentary evidence that the respondent was, in fact, collecting and retaining rent contrary to the court order. She did not do so.
7. What is evident to me is that the appellant is being dilatory. She should be prosecuting the appeal to obtain a final decision; this application does not help in that regard.
8. That being the case, the application is dismissed. Although I am of the opinion that the application is without merit, I order that the parties bear their own costs.
9. With a view to fast-tracking the appeal, I order that this matter be mentioned before Visram, J. on 22nd July 2026 for directions on the disposal of the appeal.
10. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi, this 4th day of June 2026.
2. The appellant filed, together with the Memorandum of Appeal, an application vide which she sought to stay the proceedings in the court below. The said application was heard on 19th May 2025. This delivered an ex-tempore ruling on the said date, in which it stayed proceedings in the Kadhi Court Succession Cause No. E032 of 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, and ordered that all rent collected from properties belonging to the estate of the deceased be deposited into the court account.
3. The appellant filed an application dated 27th October 2025, by which she seeks to have Salma Abdalla prevented from collecting rent accruing in respect of the estate’s properties pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The appellant specifically mentioned a property, namely a house without land at Majengo on Plot No. XIII/43. Although it was alleged that Salma collects rent, no evidence to support the allegation was provided.
4. On her part, Salma Abdalla denied the allegation. She averred that the appellant had failed to comply with the court orders and that the application was an abuse of the court process.
5. Although the parties were directed to file written submissions, only the appellant did. Her submissions are dated 17th March 2026.
6. I have considered the application. In my view, the application is not helpful. The court issued clear orders that rent accruing in respect of the estate property be deposited with the court. It was incumbent on the appellant to provide cogent documentary evidence that the respondent was, in fact, collecting and retaining rent contrary to the court order. She did not do so.
7. What is evident to me is that the appellant is being dilatory. She should be prosecuting the appeal to obtain a final decision; this application does not help in that regard.
8. That being the case, the application is dismissed. Although I am of the opinion that the application is without merit, I order that the parties bear their own costs.
9. With a view to fast-tracking the appeal, I order that this matter be mentioned before Visram, J. on 22nd July 2026 for directions on the disposal of the appeal.
10. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi, this 4th day of June 2026.