[2014] KEHC 7572 (KLR)
The court found that the application was bare and vague, lacking concrete and credible evidence to support allegations of intermeddling as required under Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. The accusations amounted to alleging criminal conduct, which demands a high threshold of proof that was not met....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 7572 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Manjit Singh Chana; Applicant: __MISSING__
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 2930 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Intermeddling With Estate, Probate and Administration, Estate Assets, Company Shares in Estate
- 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
Manjit Singh Chana
Respondent
__MISSING__
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent has intermeddled with the assets of the estate in contravention of Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act.
- 2 Whether the allegations of intermeddling are supported by concrete and credible evidence.
- 3 Whether the probate court has jurisdiction over disputes relating to company shareholding.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application was bare and vague, lacking concrete and credible evidence to support allegations of intermeddling as required under Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. The accusations amounted to alleging criminal conduct, which demands a high threshold of proof that was not met. Furthermore, the court held that issues concerning shareholding in Numatic Engineers Ltd fall outside the jurisdiction of the probate court and should be resolved in the commercial court. Consequently, the application was dismissed as misconceived.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 15th April 2013 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MILIMANI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 2930 OF 2006
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF BANT SINGH CHANA – DECEASED
RULING
1. The application dated 15th April 2013 is premised on Sections 45 and 47 of the Law of Succession Act. It seeks orders directed at Manjit Singh Chana – to prohibit him from interfering and intermeddling with the assets of the estate and to account for all assets and moneys collected from Numatic Engineers Ltd.
2. In the affidavit in support of the application, the applicant complains that the respondent, Manjit Singh Chana, has been interfering with shares in the company due to the estate and also with Nairobi Block 103/195. He is accused of contravening company regulations in making his son a non-director shareholder.
3. The respondent has replied to this application through his affidavit sworn on 21st May 2013. He says that he has never dealt with the applicant’s shares in the company. He says that he has also not interfered with the landed property.
4. The application is premised on Section 45 of the Act. The said provision creates criminal offences for intermeddling. The threshold for proof of intermeddling is very high. Accusations of intermeddling amount to alleging that some person has committed criminal acts. Such accusations must be grounded on concrete and credible evidence.
5. I have carefully gone through the affidavit sworn in support of the application dated 15th April 2013. I find the said application bare and vague. The allegations made therein do not support a case for intermeddling, whether in a civil or criminal matter. It does not state a clear case demonstrating intermeddling.
6. The issues raised regarding Numatic Engineers Ltd are matters that are outside the jurisdiction of this court. If there are issues touching on the shareholding in that company between the parties, the same ought to be resolved at the commercial court, not by the probate court.
7. The application dated 15th April 2013 is misconceived. I hereby dismiss it with costs.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this31st DAY OF January, 2014.
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE