[2015] KEHC 7025 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 7025 (KLR)

The court found that the trust over LR No. 36/VII/34, created for the benefit of the deceased's minor children, was only to subsist during their minority. As both beneficiaries had attained the age of majority by the time of the application, the trust no longer existed. Consequently, the administrators no longer...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 7025 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Administrators of the Estate of Ali Ismail Mohamed; Respondent: Minor children of the deceased (now adults)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 2548 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Leave to Dispose of Estate Property
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DN Musyoka
Legal Topics
Succession of Estates, Trusts for Minors, Vesting of Property, Administration of Estates
Source Language
en
Family and Children Land and Property Succession of Estates Trusts for Minors Vesting of Property 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.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Administrators of the Estate of Ali Ismail Mohamed

Applicant

Minor children of the deceased (now adults)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Leave to Dispose of Estate Property

  1. 1 Whether the administrators have authority to dispose of LR No. 36/VII/34 after the beneficiaries have attained majority.
  2. 2 Whether the trust created by the confirmed grant subsists after the minors reach adulthood.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trust over LR No. 36/VII/34, created for the benefit of the deceased's minor children, was only to subsist during their minority. As both beneficiaries had attained the age of majority by the time of the application, the trust no longer existed. Consequently, the administrators no longer held the property in trust and had no authority to seek its disposal or reinvestment. The proper course was for the administrators to arrange for the transfer and vesting of the property in the now adult beneficiaries. The application to dispose of the property was therefore misconceived and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 16th July 2013 is dismissed.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.