1. The Protestors/Applicants took out the motion dated 6 th January, 2026 and sought for the inter alia;
(i) THAT the Applicants be granted leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal at Nakuru against the whole Judgment and Decree of this Honourable Court (Hon. Justice J. K. Sergon) delivered on 18 th December, 2025.
(ii) THAT upon grant of leave, the applicants be at liberty to file and serve a Notice of appeal and Memorandum of Appeal within such time as the Court may direct.
(iii) THAT costs of this Application be in the intended Appeal.
2. The Applicants filed the Affidavit of Robert Chirchir Biegon in support of the motion. The Respondents did not deem it fit to file a response nor written submissions.
3. The main order the Protestors sought from this Court is for leave to file an Appeal to the Court of Appeal against this Court’s Judgment delivered on 18 th December, 2025. The Applicants argued that they have no automatic right of Appeal hence the need for leave.
4. The Applicants pointed out that their intended Appeal raises pure points of law deserving interrogation and authoritative determination by the Court of Appeal. It is also argued that the Appeal has reasonable chances of success.
5. Having considered the material placed before this Court and having taken into account the written submissions, I am convinced that the Applicants have no automatic right of Appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of this Court exercising its original jurisdiction.
6. In Saheel Rashid Mughal & Another -vs- Mohamed Shabir Bhola [2025] KECA 420 (KLR) , the Court of appeal held inter alia:-
(i) The interpretation and Application of Section 29, 39 and 41 of the law of succession Act;
(ii) Whether grandchildren inherit by representation notwithstanding absence of proof of dependency;
(iii) Whether the learned Judge misdirected himself in law by treating dependency as a mandatory prerequisite to inheritance by grandchildren where their parent is deceased.
7. The question is whether the Applicants’ Application meet the threshold set in such an Application. It is apparent from the arguments put forward by the Applicants that the intended Appeal raises arguable and weighty questions of law. The Applicants intend to seek from the Court of Appeal to interpret the import and Application of Sections 29, 39 and 41 of the Law of Succession Act.
8. I am satisfied that the Application meets the threshold set for such Applications. I find merit in Application. It is allowed. Consequently, leave is granted to the Protestors/Applicants to file an Appeal in the Court of Appeal against this Court’s Judgment delivered on 18 th December, 2025.
9. The Respondents did not contest the instant Application.
Further, this is a dispute involving family members. Therefore, a fair order on costs is that each party should meet their own costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kericho this 26 th day of February, 2026.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the Presence of :-
C/Assistant – Rutoh
Bore for the Protestors
(i) THAT the Applicants be granted leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal at Nakuru against the whole Judgment and Decree of this Honourable Court (Hon. Justice J. K. Sergon) delivered on 18 th December, 2025.
(ii) THAT upon grant of leave, the applicants be at liberty to file and serve a Notice of appeal and Memorandum of Appeal within such time as the Court may direct.
(iii) THAT costs of this Application be in the intended Appeal.
2. The Applicants filed the Affidavit of Robert Chirchir Biegon in support of the motion. The Respondents did not deem it fit to file a response nor written submissions.
3. The main order the Protestors sought from this Court is for leave to file an Appeal to the Court of Appeal against this Court’s Judgment delivered on 18 th December, 2025. The Applicants argued that they have no automatic right of Appeal hence the need for leave.
4. The Applicants pointed out that their intended Appeal raises pure points of law deserving interrogation and authoritative determination by the Court of Appeal. It is also argued that the Appeal has reasonable chances of success.
5. Having considered the material placed before this Court and having taken into account the written submissions, I am convinced that the Applicants have no automatic right of Appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of this Court exercising its original jurisdiction.
6. In Saheel Rashid Mughal & Another -vs- Mohamed Shabir Bhola [2025] KECA 420 (KLR) , the Court of appeal held inter alia:-
(i) The interpretation and Application of Section 29, 39 and 41 of the law of succession Act;
(ii) Whether grandchildren inherit by representation notwithstanding absence of proof of dependency;
(iii) Whether the learned Judge misdirected himself in law by treating dependency as a mandatory prerequisite to inheritance by grandchildren where their parent is deceased.
7. The question is whether the Applicants’ Application meet the threshold set in such an Application. It is apparent from the arguments put forward by the Applicants that the intended Appeal raises arguable and weighty questions of law. The Applicants intend to seek from the Court of Appeal to interpret the import and Application of Sections 29, 39 and 41 of the Law of Succession Act.
8. I am satisfied that the Application meets the threshold set for such Applications. I find merit in Application. It is allowed. Consequently, leave is granted to the Protestors/Applicants to file an Appeal in the Court of Appeal against this Court’s Judgment delivered on 18 th December, 2025.
9. The Respondents did not contest the instant Application.
Further, this is a dispute involving family members. Therefore, a fair order on costs is that each party should meet their own costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kericho this 26 th day of February, 2026.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the Presence of :-
C/Assistant – Rutoh
Bore for the Protestors