1. This is a miscellaneous application in which the applicant seeks to have the grant in the Machakos Kadhi Court Succession Cause No. E006 of 2021 revoked and/or annulled as illegal and obtained fraudulently. The application is supported by the affidavit of Famhy Abdalla Brek. The deponent stated that the Machakos court lacked jurisdiction to determine the matter because the deceased died in Mombasa and because his estate and dependants are domiciled there. The respondents were accused of forum shopping.
2. The applicant deposed that Succession Cause No. E006 of 2021 was later transferred to the Mombasa Kadhi’s Court, where it became Kadhi’s Court Succession No. E116 of 2022. It is contended that no lawful succession proceedings exist in the Mombasa court. The applicant is apprehensive that the respondents may dispose of, alienate, waste, or interfere with the estate of the deceased to the detriment of the lawful beneficiaries.
3. The respondents filed grounds of opposition dated 11th November 2025, in which they contended that this court lacks jurisdiction because the applicant ought to have filed an appeal against the impugned decision. It was further contended that the matter is res subjudice, as Mombasa Kadhi’s Court Succession Cause No. E116 of 2023; the Estate of Abdalla Brek said is live, and that the Kadhi’s Court has countrywide jurisdiction.
4. The 2nd Respondent deposed to an affidavit on 21st November 2025 in which it was contended that the applicant had filed a multiplicity of matters and that the cause now before the court was an abuse of the court process.
5. Parties filed written submissions, both of which were dated 20th November 2025. I have considered the said submissions.
6. It would appear to me that the applicant seeks to have this court exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the Kadhi’s Court. Whereas the decision of the Kadhi is impugned, the matter before me is not an appeal. Having considered the matter, I am of the view that I should decline the invitation to allow the application. My view is that supervisory jurisdiction cannot be invoked where alternative remedies, such as revision or appeal, exist, or where the effect is to micromanage the inferior court.
7. I am guided by the persuasive authority of the decision of Okongo, J. (as he then was) in National Social Security Fund v Sokomania Ltd and another [2021] eKLR, where the learned Judge stated as follows;
“ Where, or if, it is intended to exercise Supervisory Jurisdiction under the Constitution, I think the following safeguards should be observed:
i. A balance has to be struck in the exercise of constitutional Supervisory Jurisdiction to ensure there is no appearance that its object is to micro- manage the trial court’s independence in the conduct and management of its proceedings
ii. Ideally, constitutional Supervisory Jurisdiction should be exercised only after the parties are heard on the subject matter in question
iii. Supervisory Jurisdiction should not be used where the option of revision is appropriate or applicable;
iv. Supervisory Jurisdiction should not be used as a shortcut for an appeal where the circumstances for appeal clearly pertain and are more appropriate;
v. Supervisory Jurisdiction should be exercised to achieve the promotion of the public interest and public confidence in the administration of justice.”
.
8. My view is that the Kadhi’s court has countrywide jurisdiction and that, for that reason, there was no jurisdiction overreach on the part of the Machakos Kadhi’s Court. In making this determination, I am guided by the persuasive authority of the holding by Bw’Onwonga, J, in the case of Farzila Hasham v Kadhi’s Court, Narok/Kericho & another; Khatijabai Essak Musa (Interested Party) [2020] KEHC 5513 (KLR), where his lordship ruled that:
“It is clear from the foregoing Constitutional provisions that the Kadhi’s court is only limited in terms of the subject matter and the religion of the parties, who must profess the Muslim faith. Unlike magisterial courts whose jurisdiction is governed as to the place of filing by sections 11 to 15 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) Laws of Kenya; and section 5 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act (Cap 5) Laws of Kenya in terms of pecuniary jurisdiction, the Kadhi’s court is not limited in terms of both territory and pecuniary jurisdiction. The affidavit evidence of the ex parte applicant that the jurisdiction of the Kadhi’s court is limited in terms of monetary jurisdiction; since the estate is worth Kshs. 165, 730,000/= is without legal basis. The Kadhi’s court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the instant succession cause.
Furthermore, the territorial (or geographical) jurisdiction of the Kadhi’s court is not limited in any way...”
9. I am also persuaded that, as the parties are presently before the Kadhi’s Court, Mombasa, this matter is res subjudice. Whatever grievances that the applicant has may be raised before the said Court for resolution.
10. The upshot of the foregoing is that the application before the court is without merit. The same is an abuse of the court process. Consequently, I strike out the same with costs to the respondents.
11. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed in Nairobi this 11th day of June, 2026.
2. The applicant deposed that Succession Cause No. E006 of 2021 was later transferred to the Mombasa Kadhi’s Court, where it became Kadhi’s Court Succession No. E116 of 2022. It is contended that no lawful succession proceedings exist in the Mombasa court. The applicant is apprehensive that the respondents may dispose of, alienate, waste, or interfere with the estate of the deceased to the detriment of the lawful beneficiaries.
3. The respondents filed grounds of opposition dated 11th November 2025, in which they contended that this court lacks jurisdiction because the applicant ought to have filed an appeal against the impugned decision. It was further contended that the matter is res subjudice, as Mombasa Kadhi’s Court Succession Cause No. E116 of 2023; the Estate of Abdalla Brek said is live, and that the Kadhi’s Court has countrywide jurisdiction.
4. The 2nd Respondent deposed to an affidavit on 21st November 2025 in which it was contended that the applicant had filed a multiplicity of matters and that the cause now before the court was an abuse of the court process.
5. Parties filed written submissions, both of which were dated 20th November 2025. I have considered the said submissions.
6. It would appear to me that the applicant seeks to have this court exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the Kadhi’s Court. Whereas the decision of the Kadhi is impugned, the matter before me is not an appeal. Having considered the matter, I am of the view that I should decline the invitation to allow the application. My view is that supervisory jurisdiction cannot be invoked where alternative remedies, such as revision or appeal, exist, or where the effect is to micromanage the inferior court.
7. I am guided by the persuasive authority of the decision of Okongo, J. (as he then was) in National Social Security Fund v Sokomania Ltd and another [2021] eKLR, where the learned Judge stated as follows;
“ Where, or if, it is intended to exercise Supervisory Jurisdiction under the Constitution, I think the following safeguards should be observed:
i. A balance has to be struck in the exercise of constitutional Supervisory Jurisdiction to ensure there is no appearance that its object is to micro- manage the trial court’s independence in the conduct and management of its proceedings
ii. Ideally, constitutional Supervisory Jurisdiction should be exercised only after the parties are heard on the subject matter in question
iii. Supervisory Jurisdiction should not be used where the option of revision is appropriate or applicable;
iv. Supervisory Jurisdiction should not be used as a shortcut for an appeal where the circumstances for appeal clearly pertain and are more appropriate;
v. Supervisory Jurisdiction should be exercised to achieve the promotion of the public interest and public confidence in the administration of justice.”
.
8. My view is that the Kadhi’s court has countrywide jurisdiction and that, for that reason, there was no jurisdiction overreach on the part of the Machakos Kadhi’s Court. In making this determination, I am guided by the persuasive authority of the holding by Bw’Onwonga, J, in the case of Farzila Hasham v Kadhi’s Court, Narok/Kericho & another; Khatijabai Essak Musa (Interested Party) [2020] KEHC 5513 (KLR), where his lordship ruled that:
“It is clear from the foregoing Constitutional provisions that the Kadhi’s court is only limited in terms of the subject matter and the religion of the parties, who must profess the Muslim faith. Unlike magisterial courts whose jurisdiction is governed as to the place of filing by sections 11 to 15 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) Laws of Kenya; and section 5 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act (Cap 5) Laws of Kenya in terms of pecuniary jurisdiction, the Kadhi’s court is not limited in terms of both territory and pecuniary jurisdiction. The affidavit evidence of the ex parte applicant that the jurisdiction of the Kadhi’s court is limited in terms of monetary jurisdiction; since the estate is worth Kshs. 165, 730,000/= is without legal basis. The Kadhi’s court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the instant succession cause.
Furthermore, the territorial (or geographical) jurisdiction of the Kadhi’s court is not limited in any way...”
9. I am also persuaded that, as the parties are presently before the Kadhi’s Court, Mombasa, this matter is res subjudice. Whatever grievances that the applicant has may be raised before the said Court for resolution.
10. The upshot of the foregoing is that the application before the court is without merit. The same is an abuse of the court process. Consequently, I strike out the same with costs to the respondents.
11. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed in Nairobi this 11th day of June, 2026.