[2020] KEHC 3405 (KLR)
The court found that the cautions placed on L.R. No. Dagoretti/Riruta/1512 by the respondents were preventing the applicant from executing valid court orders in the administration of the deceased's estate. The court noted that no stay orders had been obtained from the appellate court, and the ruling of Musyoka J...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 3405 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jacinta Njeri Ashford; Respondent: Mary Wanjiku Njoki; Respondent: John Kimani Njuguna; Respondent: Susan Waithera Njuguna
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 1589 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Lift Cautions
- Outcome
- application allowed with costs
- Judges
- A Ali-Aroni
- Legal Topics
- Succession of Estates, Removal of Caution, Grant of Letters of Administration, Pending Appeal, Revocation of Grant
- 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
Jacinta Njeri Ashford
Applicant
Mary Wanjiku Njoki
Respondent
John Kimani Njuguna
Respondent
Susan Waithera Njuguna
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Lift Cautions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the cautions placed on L.R. No. Dagoretti/Riruta/1512 should be lifted to allow execution of court orders in the succession cause.
- 2 Whether the pending appeal and application for revocation of grant justify maintaining the cautions.
- 3 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to determine the application in a succession matter.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the cautions placed on L.R. No. Dagoretti/Riruta/1512 by the respondents were preventing the applicant from executing valid court orders in the administration of the deceased's estate. The court noted that no stay orders had been obtained from the appellate court, and the ruling of Musyoka J remained in force. The respondent had not demonstrated diligence in prosecuting the appeal or the application for revocation of grant, and the matter had been pending since 1994. The court held that it would be unfair and unreasonable to allow the respondent's inaction to delay the conclusion of the succession proceedings. Accordingly, the application to lift the cautions was...
Court Disposition
application allowed with costs
Orders
- The cautions dated 21st October, 1993 and 11th June, 2004 placed by John Kimani Njuguna and Susan Waithera Njuguna against property L.R. No. Dagoretti/Riruta/1512 are lifted.
- The applicant is awarded costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
FAMILY DIVISION
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 1589 OF 1994
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ASHFORD NJUGUNA NDUNI (DECEASED)
R U L I N G
1. The application before court is dated 2nd August, 2019 and seeks for one substantive prayer; that cautions dated 21st October, 1993 and 11th June, 2004 placed by John Kimani Njuguna and Susan Waithera Njuguna against property L.R. No. Dagoretti/Riruta/1512 be lifted.
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of the Applicant Jacinta Njeri Ashford dated 2nd August, 2019 wherein she indicates that she is unable to execute court orders as a result of the same.
3. The application was objected to by one Mary Wanjiku Njoki describing herself as the 5th Respondent in an affidavit dated 28th January, 2020 and wherein, she complains lack of involvement in the proposed subdivision of the land, further she states that she moved the Court of Appeal for stay of execution; the applicant has allowed strangers on the suit property, and she acts in bad faith and with impunity.
4. At the hearing of the application counsel for the respondent urged that the application ought to be filed in the Environment and Land Court; there is pending an application for revocation of grant dated 23rd January, 2013 as the grant was obtained fraudulently and there is pending an appeal against the decision of Musyoka J.
5. In reply counsel for the applicant urged that the caution do not serve any purpose; since this is a succession matter this court ought to determine the matter. Applicant is yet to be served with the appeal, the ruling of Musyoka J stands.
6. On record is a notice of intention to appeal filed on 18th July, 2018 seeking for typed proceedings. Further in the application objecting to the revival of caution is annexed an application dated 20th August, 2018 seeking for stay of execution pending appeal. Surprisingly the Applicant herein has not been served yet the application which is several years old. It is also not clear whether an attempt has been made to secure a date in the Court of Appeal.
7. For now, Musyoka J’s ruling remains as not stay orders have been obtained.
8. In my view no much effort has been put in place by the respondent to bring this long outstanding matter to a closure and therefore it would be unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances of this case to allow an indolent litigant to delay such a matter that has been pending in court since 1994.
9. Consequently, I allow the application with costs.
DATED DELIVERED and SIGNED THIS 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2020.
......................
ALI-ARONI
JUDGE