[2025] KEHC 4424 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 4424 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had filed the application in the wrong forum, as substantive orders concerning the estate should be sought in the succession cause, not a miscellaneous application. Furthermore, the applicant failed to prove that the properties in question belonged to the deceased's estate or that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 4424 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Shukri Shige Borde; Respondent: Hawo Hussein Shige
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Marsabit
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
8 April 2025
Case Number
Family Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
FR Olel
Legal Topics
Succession Disputes, Injunctive Relief, Intermeddling With Estate, Administration of Estates
Source Language
english
Family and Children Civil Procedure Succession Disputes Injunctive Relief Intermeddling With Estate Administration of Estates

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shukri Shige Borde

Applicant

Hawo Hussein Shige

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to injunctive orders restraining the respondent from intermeddling with the deceased's estate.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has locus standi to bring the application in a miscellaneous cause.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has proved that the properties in question belong to the estate and that the respondent has intermeddled with them.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had filed the application in the wrong forum, as substantive orders concerning the estate should be sought in the succession cause, not a miscellaneous application. Furthermore, the applicant failed to prove that the properties in question belonged to the deceased's estate or that the respondent had intermeddled with them. Without such proof, the court could not grant injunctive relief. The application was therefore dismissed for lack of merit, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The notice of motion application dated 7th February 2025 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.