[2013] KEHC 3346 (KLR)
The court found that the respondents had filed two similar applications for revocation of grant based on the same facts and had taken no steps to prosecute them for several years. No satisfactory explanation was provided for the delay or for the multiplicity of applications. The court held that this conduct amounted...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 3346 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Lilian A. Kiongo; Respondent: Esther W. Kiongo; Applicant: Administrator of the Estate of Peter Karanja Kiongo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 1157 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Dismissal of Revocation Applications for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Applications for revocation of grant dated 29th July 2008 and 27th May 2009 dismissed for want of prosecution with costs.
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Succession Procedure, Revocation of Grant, Abuse of Court Process
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lilian A. Kiongo
Respondent
Esther W. Kiongo
Respondent
Administrator of the Estate of Peter Karanja Kiongo
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Dismissal of Revocation Applications for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents' applications for revocation of grant should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the respondents abused the court process by filing multiple similar applications based on the same facts.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents had filed two similar applications for revocation of grant based on the same facts and had taken no steps to prosecute them for several years. No satisfactory explanation was provided for the delay or for the multiplicity of applications. The court held that this conduct amounted to indolence and an abuse of the court process, intended to delay the administration of the estate. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the two pending applications for want of prosecution, with costs to the applicant.
Court Disposition
Applications for revocation of grant dated 29th July 2008 and 27th May 2009 dismissed for want of prosecution with costs.
Orders
- The respondents' applications for revocation of grant dated 29th July 2008 and 27th May 2009 are dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The respondents shall bear the costs of the dismissed applications.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts)
Succession Cause 1157 of 1997 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif]
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PETER KARANJA KIONGO- (DECEASED)
RULING
The application dated 25th September 2012 seeks dismissal of two applications for revocation of grant dated 29th July 2008 and 27th May 2009 for want of prosecution. The application dated 25th September 2012 was served on the respondents – Lilian A. Kiongo and Esther W. Kiongo – but they did not respond to it, although they did attend court on 24th April 2013 when the same came up for hearing.
I have perused the record and noted that a total three revocation applications were filed by the respondents. The first is dated 29th July 2008 and was filed in court the same day. While this was still pending, another one was filed on 19th September 2008 dated 18th September 2008. The application dated 18th September 2008 was withdrawn on 27th May 2009 through notice to that effect to the court, and on the same day another revocation application of even date was filed.
After the application dated 27th May 2009 was filed nothing further happened in the matter until 24th August 2011, when a Motion was filed by the administrator for the dismissal of the pending revocation applications. This Motion was not heard as it was withdrawn on 8th November 2011. The application was replaced by a summons dated 25th September 2012 filed in court on 27th September 2012.
I have noted that all this while no effort was made by the respondents to have their two revocation applications disposed of. The two applications have never been listed for directions as no request was ever made by the respondents for the same, and therefore the two applications have never matured for hearing. No satisfactory explanation was offered by the respondents when they attended court on 24th April 2013 as to why they took no steps to have the applications heard. No explanation was also given as to why they found it necessary to fill two applications based on the same facts seeking to have the same grant revoked. The filing two similar applications smacks of abuse of court process. I interprete this to mean that the respondents merely intended to delay the administration process.
I find that no satisfactory explanation has been given for the delay in disposing of the two pending applications. The respondents have been indolent and there is want of prosecution of the said applications. A case has been made out for dismissal of the said applications for want of prosecution and I hereby dismiss them with costs.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 16th DAY OF May, 2013.
W. Musyoka
Judge
[if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]