[2011] KEHC 2703 (KLR)
The court found that the inhibition registered on parcel Nyaki/Mulathankari/562 was granted as an interim measure pending the hearing and determination of the objector's application for revocation of grant. Since the objector failed to prosecute his application and it was dismissed with costs to the petitioner,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2703 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Agnes M. Kiambi; Respondent: Davies Mbaabu Kajogu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 326 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Lift Inhibition
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Inhibition lifted. Costs to the petitioner.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Grant Revocation, Inhibition Orders, Estate Administration
- 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
Agnes M. Kiambi
Applicant
Davies Mbaabu Kajogu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Lift Inhibition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the inhibition registered on parcel Nyaki/Mulathankari/562 should be lifted after dismissal of the objector's application for revocation of grant.
- 2 Whether there is any valid reason for the inhibition to remain in force after the objector failed to prosecute his application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the inhibition registered on parcel Nyaki/Mulathankari/562 was granted as an interim measure pending the hearing and determination of the objector's application for revocation of grant. Since the objector failed to prosecute his application and it was dismissed with costs to the petitioner, there was no longer any valid legal basis for the inhibition to remain in force. The continued existence of the inhibition would be unjustified and would unduly prejudice the petitioner, who is entitled to deal with the property as the confirmed administrator of the estate. Accordingly, the court ordered the lifting of the inhibition and awarded costs to the petitioner.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Inhibition lifted. Costs to the petitioner.
Orders
- The inhibition ordered by this court to be registered on parcel number Nyaki/Mulathankari/562 on 17th October 2006 is hereby lifted.
- The objector shall pay the petitioner’s costs of the Chamber Summons dated 6th October 2009.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
SUCC. CAUSE NO. 326 OF 1996
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PHINEAS MWENDWA KIAMBI (DECEASED)
AGNES M. KIAMBI...............................................................................................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
DAVIES MBAABU KAJOGU ................................................................................................OBJECTOR
RULING
The grant in this cause was issued and was confirmed on 22nd July 1998 to the wife of the deceased namely, Agnes Kiambi. On 6th October 2006, an application was filed by David Mbaabu Kajogu (objector) seeking an order for revocation of the grant for inhibition to issue in respect of parcel Nyaki/Mulathankari/562. The application was before Lenaola J. on 17th October 2006 ex parte when an order was issued to the following effect:-
ORDER
Upon perusing the application dated 6th September 2006 and upon hearing the counsel for the applicant ex-parte it is hereby ordered:-
1. That an inhibition do issue on parcel No. Nyaki/Mulathankari/562.
2. That the application dated 6th September 2006 be heard inter parties on 16/11/2006.
3. That the respondent be served with the application dated 6/10/2006.
The matter was not listed on 16th November 2006. It was next listed before court on 24th September 2009. The objector being absent from court that day, the following order was made:-
“The application dated 6th October 2006 having been filed by the objector and failed (sic) to prosecute it and in the absence of the objector advocate despite valid service the said application is hereby dismissed with costs to the petitioner.”
The petitioner has now filed summons dated 6th October 2009 seeking for inhibition registered on parcel Nyaki/Mulathankari/562 be lifted. She deponed that the inhibition registered after the ex parte order was issued was still on the register and yet the objector’s application had been dismissed. Having set out the background of this matter, I find that there indeed is no valid reason why the inhibition should remain in force. I grant the following orders:-
1. The inhibition ordered by this court to be registered on parcel number Nyaki/Mulathankari/562 on 17th October 2006 is hereby lifted.
2. The objector shall pay the petitioner’s costs of the Chamber Summons dated 6th October 2009.
Dated, signed and delivered at Meru this 18th day of May 2011.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE