Case Law[2026] KEHC 1484Kenya
Ngunjiri (As the Personal Representative of Ruth Wanjiru Ngunjiri) v Wainaina (Originating Summons E033 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 1484 (KLR) (Family) (13 February 2026) (Ruling)
High Court of Kenya
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI
FAMILY DIVISION
ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. E033 OF 2023
MARGARET WANJIRU NGUNJIRI (AS THE PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF RUTH WANJIRU NGUNJIRI)……
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
GEOFFREY NGUNJIRI WAINAINA .….…………...…..…
DEFENDANT
RULING
INTRODUCTION
1. The defendant herein challenges the competence of this suit
vide preliminary Objection dated 11th June 2025. It is
contended that the Plaintiff lacks locus standi to present the
Suit as any rights that the deceased may have had were
extinguished at death. It is further urged that the plaintiff
being a stranger to the contract of marriage has no locus to
present this suit. Finally, it is urged that upon death, the
applicable law in relation to a deceased person is the law of
Succession Act.
OS E036 OF 2023
Page 1
2. The Plaintiff did not file a response to this Preliminary
Objection. The Defendant has filed written submission dated
12th September 2025. He submits MUKISA BISCUIT
MANUFACTURING CO. LTD V WEST END
DISTRIBUTORS LTD (1969) EA 969.
3. It is submitted that absent locus standi the suit is a non
starter, reference is made to the decision in LAW SOCIETY
OF KENYA …VS… COMMISSIONER OF LANDS &
OTHERS, NAKURU HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE No.464 of
2000; JULIAN ADOYO ONGUNGA & ANOTHER -V-
FRANCIS KIBERENGE BENDERA (SUING AS THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF FANUEL EVANS
AMUDAVI) DECEASED 2016 eKLR.
4. It is submitted that the Plaintiff should be condemned to pay
costs.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
5. Notwithstanding that the Plaintiff did not respond to the
Preliminary Objection, I am obligated on account of the
ramifications of an order of dismissal to consider the
application on its merits, specifically because the Article 159
OS E036 OF 2023
Page 2
(d) requires that the Court dispense substantive justice. This
is the reason why in Independent Electoral and
Boundaries Commission v Jane Cheperenger and others
(2015) eKLR, the Supreme Court stated;
[21]…The true preliminary objection serves two
purposes of merit: firstly, it serves as a shield for
the originator of the objection- against the
profligate deployment of time and other resources.
And secondly, it serves the public cause of sparing
scarce judicial time, so it may be committed only to
deserving cases of dispute settlement. It is
distinctly improper for a party to resort to the
preliminary objection as a sword for winning a case
otherwise destined to be resolved judicially and on
the merits.
6. The import of the direction of the Supreme Court is that
Courts should be hesitant to dismiss cases on preliminary
points except in the clearest of cases. In the current case the
Preliminary Objection is hinged on the fact that the defendant
is the sole registered proprietor of the land, his title is
unassailable especially by the Plaintiff.
7. In raising the Preliminary objection, the defendant challenges
the standing of the plaintiff to present this suit as his
daughter, but does not speak to her locus standi as the legal
representative of the deceased. He makes no reference to the
OS E036 OF 2023
Page 3
provisions of the law under which the Originating Summons
are presented. It is my considered view, that the provisions
under which the plaintiff presents the suit do cloth her with
the requisite locus standi. The question of whether or not her
claim will be successful is a matter that needs to proceed to
trial.
8. In the circumstances, I dismiss the preliminary objection.
Since the plaintiff did not participate there shall be no orders
as to costs.
9. The defendant having filed a reply, the matter will proceed to
hearing. The plaintiff is granted leave to file further affidavit
within 7 days. The matter will procced by way of viva voce
evidence. The Parties will file and exchange witness
statements within 45 days from the date hereof. Mention
before the Deputy Registrar on 21st April 2026 to confirm
compliance and take further directions.
It is so ordered
Dated, Signed and Delivered online via Microsoft Teams at
Nairobi this 13th day of February, 2026.
OS E036 OF 2023
Page 4
P.M NYAUNDI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Fardosa Court Assistant
Ms. Wanjiru for Kamau for Defendant
OS E036 OF 2023
Page 5
Similar Cases
Kariuki & 2 others (Suing On Behalf Of The Estate Of Grace Wanjiku Kariuki -Deceased) v Kariuki & another (Environment and Land Case E092 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 344 (KLR) (29 January 2026) (Ruling)
[2026] KEELC 344Employment and Labour Court of Kenya74% similar
Mwanthi (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Annah Wanthua Mwanthi) v Muoki & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E007 of 2024) [2025] KEMC 91 (KLR) (14 April 2025) (Ruling)
[2025] KEMC 91Magistrate Court of Kenya74% similar
Hussein Abdalla Ateib v Josephine Mwikali Mwangangi [2015] KEKC 14 (KLR)
[2015] KEKC 14Kadhi's Court of Kenya72% similar
Wanyama (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Peter Muthiani Wanyama alias Peter Wanyama Muthiana - Deceased) v Mash East Africa Limited & another (Civil Suit E859 of 2021) [2026] KEMC 24 (KLR) (17 February 2026) (Judgment)
[2026] KEMC 24Magistrate Court of Kenya72% similar
Ndiga v Said & another (Land Case E018 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 747 (KLR) (16 February 2026) (Ruling)
[2026] KEELC 747Employment and Labour Court of Kenya72% similar