Need a court document? Have an advocate prepare it.
Tell us about your dispute and the court involved. Request a document drafted for your facts, with your evidence and the relief you need.
An advocate confirms availability, scope and fees before accepting your matter.Full text of the document
Educational sample. Replace bracketed fields using your evidence.
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CASE OR APPLICATION NO [appropriate reference]
[APPLICANT OR CLAIMANT] v [RESPONDENT OR DEFENDANT]
PETITION OF APPEAL
1. The Petitioner appeals from the Court of Appeal judgment dated [date] in the succession litigation originating in Mombasa. Jurisdiction is invoked under Article 163(4)(a) on constitutional issues decided below, identified at [pleading and judgment pages].
2. The deceased was Muslim. The dispute concerned claimed family relationships and the effect of those relationships on succession. The Petitioner sought application of Muslim inheritance rules and challenged the appellate treatment of certain children as beneficiaries or dependants.
3. The first historical ground contended that Article 24(4), concerning application of Muslim law in succession before Kadhis’ courts, required a different assessment of the equality question. The asserted qualification and its claimed necessity must be stated precisely, rather than asserted as a blanket exemption from the Constitution.
4. The second historical ground challenged the treatment of children whose parents’ marriages were disputed. The Petitioner identified the appellate finding being challenged and the record basis, without assuming that a child’s rights and a claimant mother’s marital capacity were identical questions.
5. The third historical ground relied on section 2(3) of the Law of Succession Act. The legal issue was how its Muslim-law provision should operate consistently with Articles 20, 27 and 53, not whether an ordinary statute could simply displace constitutional rights.
6. Any factual challenge concerning parentage or acknowledgement is tied to evidence actually considered below at [pages]. No DNA result is asserted where none was obtained, and no new testing request is embedded in a petition as though already authorised.
7. The historical prayer sought setting aside of the appellate beneficiary finding and further succession directions. In a current matter any proposed exclusion solely because of the parents’ marital status must confront the Supreme Court’s adverse holding in the linked judgment.
8. The petition schedule identifies the lower pleadings, judgments and relevant relationship evidence. This reconstructed historical argument is presented for procedural study; it is not a recommended means of defeating the rights affirmed in the source decision.
DATED at [place] on [date]. [Signature of party or advocate]. DRAWN AND FILED BY [name and address for service]. TO BE SERVED UPON [each affected party and address].
Need a court document? Have an advocate prepare it.
Tell us about your dispute and the court involved. Request a document drafted for your facts, with your evidence and the relief you need.
An advocate confirms availability, scope and fees before accepting your matter.Educational reconstruction based on a reported decision. Newly drafted sample, not an original filing or a matter handled by our team. Identifying details are replaced with bracketed fields. Check your facts, current rules, court directions and jurisdiction before use.
Use and evidence notes
The Supreme Court dismissed this exclusion appeal in June 2025. A current practitioner must apply that holding, not copy the historical prayer as if it succeeded. Form G structures a petition, while Form H is a notice of address for service and is not a response form. No inheritance fractions are supplied by this specimen.
S1 notice of appeal; S2 Court of Appeal judgment; S3 relevant succession pleadings and judgment; S4 existing acknowledgement and relationship evidence; S5 precise constitutional issues decided below.
Source facts and limits of the decision
A succession dispute originating in Mombasa concerned claimed widows and children of a Muslim deceased. The appeal questioned whether children could be excluded because of their parents’ marital status and how Muslim succession law interacts with constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court dismissed the exclusion appeal and affirmed the identified children’s beneficiary or dependant status. Joint administration by two widows was ordered and the matter remitted to the High Court at Mombasa to determine entitlements. It did not set individual inheritance fractions.
Constitution Articles 20(3), 24(4), 27, 53 and 163(4)(a); Law of Succession Act section 2(3); Supreme Court Rules 2020 rules 38–42. Underlying succession proceedings remain Mombasa proceedings; this specimen concerns appellate filing at the Nairobi Supreme Court.
Read the original reported decision: Supreme Court Petition E035 of 2023 — 30 June 2025
The original judgment may identify participants. These samples remove their names; allegations and unsuccessful arguments are identified as such. Relevant facts, reasons and disposition checked in the official Supreme Court judgment PDF through retrieved text. The specimen is a fresh educational reconstruction; it is not a reproduction of an actual pleading.
Related law and procedural rules
Constitution of Kenya · Supreme Court Act · Supreme Court Rules 2020 — official compilation
Need a court document? Have an advocate prepare it.
Tell us about your dispute and the court involved. Request a document drafted for your facts, with your evidence and the relief you need.
An advocate confirms availability, scope and fees before accepting your matter.