1. This matter has a hearing date next week for viva voce hearing of applications seeking to revoke the grant issued in this matter. The applications are dated 31/05/2023 and 30/6/2025.
2. The issue for determination in this Ruling is a Preliminary Objection dated 19 th November, 2025 filed by Virginia Muthoni, 2 nd Respondent.
3. The P.O is predicated on the assertion that the applications bring forth triable issues that have been adjudicated in prior proceedings involving the parties who are beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased. The respondent stated that the decisions are: the judgment rendered by Maraga J (as he then was) on 14/11/2011 and the ensuing appeal determined by the Court of Appeal on 10/07/2020 in COA Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 203 of 2014.
4. The parties have submitted their respective propositions to the court regarding the P.O. I have reviewed the P.O, the replying affidavit, and the accompanying submissions from both sides; the issue for determination is whether the prayers sought in the application are res judicata and whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.
5. Res Judicata is a legal doctrine that bars re-litigating issues previously decided by a competent court. It can be raised as a point of law arising from a clear implication out of the pleadings.
6. In Uhuru Highway Development Limited vs Central Bank of Kenya & 2 others [1996] eKLR, the court stated that res judicata exists in the following circumstances:
i. A previous suit in which the matter was an issue;
ii. The parties were the same or litigating under the same title;
iii. A competent court heard the matter in issue; and
iv. The issue has been raised once again in a fresh suit.
7. In order for the Court to accurately determine whether the matter offends the doctrine of Res Judicata , it must evaluate the issues presented by the Applicants and analyze them in conjunction with the relevant judicial outcomes.
8. The parties have been involved in other proceedings before the present proceedings seeking revocation of the grant. The referenced Judgment of 14/11/2011 was in respect of an application dated 23/07/2001 brought under Section 26 of the Law of Succession Act for provision for dependants not adequately provided for by Will or intestacy.
9. The decision in the referenced judgment is that the application was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The appeal before the COA was from the Judgment dated 14/11/2011, and the appeal was struck out for the appellant’s failure to obtain leave before filing the appeal.
10. The issue for determination in the judgment was whether the deceased had failed to make reasonable provision in the Will for the applicants. The applicants being the household of Marion Wangui Karanja. The pleadings and the previous decisions in the file describe her as the former wife of the deceased; together, they have ten children. The second household is for Virginia Muthoni Karanja (2 nd respondent), the wife of the deceased, and together they have two children.
11. Maraga J (as he then was), conducted an examination of the properties that form the estate, as well as the specifics of the bequest outlined in the Will dated 6 th June, 1998 and the handling of the estate’s assets post the demise of the deceased herein.
12. The applicant seeking revocation of the grant expressed uncertainty regarding the validity of the Will in the pleadings submitted then, but as there was no application challenging the Will then, that issue was not canvassed and neither determined. The court only examined the issue of provision in the Will.
13. The applicants currently contest the validity of the Will, claiming it is a forgery and call for accounts, among other reliefs therein. The prayers in the applications now before the court are distinct and require a different examination under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. The Law of Succession Act acknowledges the unique nature of succession-related conflicts. Consequently, it has established clear provisions governing how parties approach the court and the parameters for the examination of the different pertinent issues that may arise.
14. After reviewing the applications submitted and examining the decisions rendered in the earlier proceedings of this case, I have reached a conclusion that the pending applications for revocation do not offend the doctrine of Res Judicata , as there are significant distinctions in the factual circumstances and legal arguments presented. The issues at hand warrant consideration and the matter shall proceed to hearing as scheduled.
15. The preliminary objection dated 19 th November, 2025 is dismissed with costs in the cause.
C. Kendagor
Judge, High Court
Delivered in the presence of;
C.A Beryl
Mr. Hiram Gachugi, Advocate for the Applicant (In summons dated 30/06/2025)
2. The issue for determination in this Ruling is a Preliminary Objection dated 19 th November, 2025 filed by Virginia Muthoni, 2 nd Respondent.
3. The P.O is predicated on the assertion that the applications bring forth triable issues that have been adjudicated in prior proceedings involving the parties who are beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased. The respondent stated that the decisions are: the judgment rendered by Maraga J (as he then was) on 14/11/2011 and the ensuing appeal determined by the Court of Appeal on 10/07/2020 in COA Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 203 of 2014.
4. The parties have submitted their respective propositions to the court regarding the P.O. I have reviewed the P.O, the replying affidavit, and the accompanying submissions from both sides; the issue for determination is whether the prayers sought in the application are res judicata and whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.
5. Res Judicata is a legal doctrine that bars re-litigating issues previously decided by a competent court. It can be raised as a point of law arising from a clear implication out of the pleadings.
6. In Uhuru Highway Development Limited vs Central Bank of Kenya & 2 others [1996] eKLR, the court stated that res judicata exists in the following circumstances:
i. A previous suit in which the matter was an issue;
ii. The parties were the same or litigating under the same title;
iii. A competent court heard the matter in issue; and
iv. The issue has been raised once again in a fresh suit.
7. In order for the Court to accurately determine whether the matter offends the doctrine of Res Judicata , it must evaluate the issues presented by the Applicants and analyze them in conjunction with the relevant judicial outcomes.
8. The parties have been involved in other proceedings before the present proceedings seeking revocation of the grant. The referenced Judgment of 14/11/2011 was in respect of an application dated 23/07/2001 brought under Section 26 of the Law of Succession Act for provision for dependants not adequately provided for by Will or intestacy.
9. The decision in the referenced judgment is that the application was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The appeal before the COA was from the Judgment dated 14/11/2011, and the appeal was struck out for the appellant’s failure to obtain leave before filing the appeal.
10. The issue for determination in the judgment was whether the deceased had failed to make reasonable provision in the Will for the applicants. The applicants being the household of Marion Wangui Karanja. The pleadings and the previous decisions in the file describe her as the former wife of the deceased; together, they have ten children. The second household is for Virginia Muthoni Karanja (2 nd respondent), the wife of the deceased, and together they have two children.
11. Maraga J (as he then was), conducted an examination of the properties that form the estate, as well as the specifics of the bequest outlined in the Will dated 6 th June, 1998 and the handling of the estate’s assets post the demise of the deceased herein.
12. The applicant seeking revocation of the grant expressed uncertainty regarding the validity of the Will in the pleadings submitted then, but as there was no application challenging the Will then, that issue was not canvassed and neither determined. The court only examined the issue of provision in the Will.
13. The applicants currently contest the validity of the Will, claiming it is a forgery and call for accounts, among other reliefs therein. The prayers in the applications now before the court are distinct and require a different examination under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. The Law of Succession Act acknowledges the unique nature of succession-related conflicts. Consequently, it has established clear provisions governing how parties approach the court and the parameters for the examination of the different pertinent issues that may arise.
14. After reviewing the applications submitted and examining the decisions rendered in the earlier proceedings of this case, I have reached a conclusion that the pending applications for revocation do not offend the doctrine of Res Judicata , as there are significant distinctions in the factual circumstances and legal arguments presented. The issues at hand warrant consideration and the matter shall proceed to hearing as scheduled.
15. The preliminary objection dated 19 th November, 2025 is dismissed with costs in the cause.
C. Kendagor
Judge, High Court
Delivered in the presence of;
C.A Beryl
Mr. Hiram Gachugi, Advocate for the Applicant (In summons dated 30/06/2025)