[2015] KEHC 5185 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 5185 (KLR)

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the 1st defendant had already been granted a confirmed grant by the court of the Senior Resident Magistrate, and the estate had been distributed in accordance with that grant. The proper procedure for challenging or revoking the grant was by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 5185 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Alice Njura Njeru (suing as personal representative of Njeru Nyaga, deceased); Defendant: Stephen Njeru G. Ndwiga; Defendant: Emilioi Mwaniki Njeru; Applicant: Alice Njura Njeru
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Embu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 52 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection upheld; suit dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Court, Revocation of Grant, Succession Proceedings, Land Ownership Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Jurisdiction of Court Revocation of Grant Succession Proceedings Land Ownership Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alice Njura Njeru (suing as personal representative of Njeru Nyaga, deceased)

Plaintiff

Stephen Njeru G. Ndwiga

Defendant

Emilioi Mwaniki Njeru

Defendant

Alice Njura Njeru

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging a confirmed grant issued by the Magistrate's Court.
  2. 2 Whether the suit is an abuse of court process contrary to Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 44 of the Probate and Administration Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the 1st defendant had already been granted a confirmed grant by the court of the Senior Resident Magistrate, and the estate had been distributed in accordance with that grant. The proper procedure for challenging or revoking the grant was by application for revocation or annulment under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 44(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules, not by filing a fresh suit in this court. As such, the preliminary objection was upheld and the suit was dismissed as an abuse of court process.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection upheld; suit dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is upheld.
  • The suit is dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant.