[2022] KEHC 10320 (KLR)
The court found that although the applicants, as administrators, would ordinarily be entitled to take possession and manage the estate property, there was an existing order from a court of equal jurisdiction (HCCC No. 113 of 2019) directing that rent from the property be collected by the parties' advocates and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 10320 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rose Wanjiru Muriu; Applicant: Linus Kabiga Chege; Respondent: Ejidiah Wanjiku Chege; Respondent: George Mugo Chege; Respondent: Biliha Muthoni Chege; Respondent: Charles Gacheru Chege; Respondent: Nancy Wanjiru Chege; Respondent: Pricilla Wangari Chege; Respondent: Gerald Muhoro Chege; Respondent: Linus Kafiga Chege; Respondent: John Gichuki Chege
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause E1277 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Refund of Rent
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Administration of Estates, Grant of Letters of Administration, Joint Property Ownership, Collection of Rent, Interlocutory Injunctions
- 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
Rose Wanjiru Muriu
Applicant
Linus Kabiga Chege
Applicant
Ejidiah Wanjiku Chege
Respondent
George Mugo Chege
Respondent
Biliha Muthoni Chege
Respondent
Charles Gacheru Chege
Respondent
Nancy Wanjiru Chege
Respondent
Pricilla Wangari Chege
Respondent
Gerald Muhoro Chege
Respondent
Linus Kafiga Chege
Respondent
John Gichuki Chege
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Refund of Rent
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants, as administrators, are entitled to exclusive possession and management of the estate property pending determination of the succession cause.
- 2 Whether the respondents should be restrained from dealing with the estate property and required to refund collected rent.
- 3 Whether the existence of a prior court order regarding rent collection precludes granting the orders sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the applicants, as administrators, would ordinarily be entitled to take possession and manage the estate property, there was an existing order from a court of equal jurisdiction (HCCC No. 113 of 2019) directing that rent from the property be collected by the parties' advocates and deposited in a joint interest-earning account. Granting the orders sought by the applicants would directly conflict with this prior order. Furthermore, the applicants failed to disclose the existence of the ongoing suit and the relevant order to the court, breaching the duty of full and frank disclosure required when seeking equitable relief. The court therefore declined to grant...
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- The application dated 12th July 2021 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
In re Estate of Annah Muthoni Chege (Deceased) (Succession Cause E1277 of 2020) [2022] KEHC 10320 (KLR) (Family) (9 May 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 10320 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Family
Succession Cause E1277 of 2020
AO Muchelule, J
May 9, 2022
Between
Rose Wanjiru Muriu
1st Applicant
Linus Kabiga Chege
2nd Applicant
and
Ejidiah Wanjiku Chege
1st Respondent
George Mugo Chege
2nd Respondent
Biliha Muthoni Chege
3rd Respondent
Charles Gacheru Chege
4th Respondent
Nancy Wanjiru Chege
5th Respondent
Pricilla Wangari Chege
6th Respondent
Gerald Muhoro chege
7th Respondent
Linus Kafiga Chege
8th Respondent
John Gichuki Chege
9th Respondent
Ruling
1. The deceased Annah Muthoni Chege, died intestate on the 10th September 2018. she was the wife of the late Chege Muhoro who had died on 16th February 2018. When the two were alive, they were the joint registered owners of Plot No. 36/1/311 in Eastleigh in Nairobi. the plot was developed with rental units, and had paying tenants.
2. The deceased’s children with her late husband included the applicants Rose Wanjiru Muriu and Linus Kabiga Chege. It does appear that Chege Muhoro had another family. This consisted of wife Ejidiah Wanjiku Chege (the 1st respondent) and her children (the 2nd to 9th respondents).
3. Upon the death of Chege Muhoro, the parcel of land registered in the joint name passed to the deceased. This subsequent registration was hotly contested by the respondents who considered the property to belong to the family and which should be inherited by the two houses. The 1st respondent’s case was that, following her marriage to Chege Muhoro in 1961 she substantially contributed to the development of the property. My considered view is that the issue regarding the interest, if at all, of Chege Muhoro’s second house in the property following his death, and the subsequent registration in the name of the deceased should properly be litigated in the Environment and Land Court.
4. Following the death of the deceased, the applicants petitioned this court, and obtained a grant of letters of administration intestate on 13th May 2021. Armed with the grant, they filed the present summons dated 12th July 2021 seeking to restrain the respondents, their agents and/or servants, from trespassing, encroaching, constructing, and collecting rent or in any other manner dealing with the property. Their case was the they had authority, through the grant, to administer this property of the estate but that they had been forcefully blocked by the respondents who were collecting rent from the tenants. The rent collected so far was Kshs.9,825,000/=. They sought the rent to be refunded to them as the administrators of the estate.
5. The respondents replied to the application by laying claim to the property, and by giving a history of the various suits that were on-going between the parties over the property. They claimed that the grant had been obtained fraudulently by them not being informed about it. One of the suits they referred to was HCCC No. 113 of 2019 at Milimani in which the applicants had sued them over the property. They referred to an order dated 14th November 2019 in the suit asking the tenants in the property to pay rent into the joint account in the name of the advocates of the two sides, and that the account opened for the purpose would be interest earning. The respondents complained that the applicants had not brought the suits and the order to the attention of the court. It is basic that an applicant who seeks the exercise of the court’s discretion has to be candid and make the fullest material disclosure. The applicants did not abide by this requirement.
6. I note that the court is not dealing with any application by the respondents for the revocation of the grant issued to the applicants.
7. Ideally, under section 45 of the Law of Succession Act (Cap. 160) the grant issued to the applicants should entitle them to take possession of LR No. 26/1/311 at Eastleigh and manage the collection of rent of behalf of the estate of the deceased. This is because any person without a grant of probate or letters of administration, or without an order of the court, should not take charge of, or administer, the estate of a deceased person. In this case, however, there is an earlier order by a court of equal jurisdiction that asked the advocates of the parties to collect rent and save it in an interest earning account opened and operated by them. If the orders sought in the instant application are granted, they will conflict with the above order.
8. These are the reasons why I will not allow the present application.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 9TH DAY OF MAY 2022. A.O. MUCHELULEJUDGE