[2012] KEHC 1883 (KLR)
The High Court found that the Kadhi's Court correctly recognized its lack of jurisdiction to determine ownership of the disputed property and properly directed the parties to furnish evidence from relevant authorities. There was no misdirection or excess of jurisdiction by the Kadhi. The dispute over ownership must...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 1883 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Hussein Rajab Mwanaharusi Rajab Rajab (Suing in their capacity as administrators of the Estate of the Late Juma Rajab); Respondent: Kadhi’s Court; Interested Party: Juma Mohammed Rajab
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 432 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DAS Majanja
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review of Kadhis Court, Succession Disputes, Estate Administration, Jurisdiction of Kadhis Court
- 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
Hussein Rajab Mwanaharusi Rajab Rajab (Suing in their capacity as administrators of the Estate of the Late Juma Rajab)
Applicant
Kadhi’s Court
Respondent
Juma Mohammed Rajab
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Kadhi's Court had jurisdiction to determine ownership of Plot No. 37 Pumwani before administering the estate.
- 2 Whether the Kadhi misdirected himself in requiring evidence of ownership from relevant authorities before proceeding with succession.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the Kadhi's Court correctly recognized its lack of jurisdiction to determine ownership of the disputed property and properly directed the parties to furnish evidence from relevant authorities. There was no misdirection or excess of jurisdiction by the Kadhi. The dispute over ownership must be resolved in accordance with the law by the appropriate forum before the estate can be administered. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed as the Kadhi's approach was legally sound and did not warrant interference by the High Court.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The applicant’s suit is dismissed with no order as to costs.
- The ruling shall be forwarded to the Kadhi for his attention.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
JUDICIAL REVIEW 432 OF 2009
HUSSEIN RAJAB
MWANAHARUSI RAJAB RAJAB(Suing in their capacity as administrators of the Estate of the Late)
JUMA RAJAB …........................................................................................................................... APPLICANTS
AND
KADHI’S COURT .......................................................................................................................... RESPONDENT
AND
JUMA MOHAMMED RAJAB ..........................................................................……............. INTERESTED PARTY
JUDGMENT
1. The applicant moves this court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6) over certain proceedings of the Kadhis Court, to wit Nairobi Kadhis Court Inheritance Case No. 137 of 2008 (Juma Mohamed Rajab v Juma Rajab).
2. I have heard the applicant and the interested party who both concede that there is a dispute as to the ownership of Plot No. 37 PUMWANI which is subject of the succession dispute. Both parties also concede that the Kadhi has called for evidence to confirm the ownership of the property before the estate of the deceased can be administered.
3. On 16th April 2009, the Kadhi made the following ruling in the matter;
“UPON HEARING the parties and upon reading the written submissions this is a succession case filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. The parties are nephew and uncle. There are disputes on the relationship between the deceased and the defendant which shall be determined afterwards, and there is a standing dispute and confusion on who owns the estate in question. Therefore the court is of the opinion to compel the parties and their counsels to furnish this court who is the lawful owner of the plot Number 27 Pumwani from relevant authorities before it determines other issues.
Dated this Thursday 16th April 2009
Al-Mahdur A-S- Hussein
Nairobi Kadhi
4. In my view the Kadhi properly directed himself when he acknowledged that he is to be “furnished” I believe evidence of who is the lawful owner of the plot from “relevant authorities.” He recognised that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the issue of ownership and that such proof could only come from “relevant authorities” which includes a determination by the court.
5. I have looked at the various depositions filed by the parties and it is clear that there is a dispute as to the ownership of the property. This dispute will have to be resolved in the manner provided by the law.
6. On my part, I do not find any misdirection by the Kadhi in his decision of 16th April 2009. In the result the applicant’s suit is dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. The ruling shall be forwarded to the Kadhi for his attention.
DATEDand DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 15th day of October 2012
D.S. MAJANJA
JUDGE
Mr Munoko instructed by Nyandieka and Associates Advocates for the applicant.
Ms Odhiambo instructed by Mohammed and Lethome Advocates for the interested party.