[2025] KEHC 8101 (KLR)
The court found that service of the application for substitution of the deceased administratrix was unsatisfactory, as it was only effected upon Muri Mbugua & Company Advocates, who were not on record, and not upon Mukisu & Company Advocates, who are on record for the petitioner, nor upon the two widows, three sons,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 8101 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: JO Makali & Company Advocates (Ms. Masengeli); Respondent: Mukisu & Company Advocates (Mr. Mukisu)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 15 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Motion for Substitution of Deceased Administratrix
- Outcome
- Application for substitution not determined; matter adjourned for mention.
- Judges
- WM Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Administration of Estates, Substitution of Administrator
- 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
JO Makali & Company Advocates (Ms. Masengeli)
Applicant
Mukisu & Company Advocates (Mr. Mukisu)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Motion for Substitution of Deceased Administratrix
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether service of the application for substitution of the deceased administratrix was properly effected on all necessary parties.
- 2 Whether the court can proceed to determine the application in the absence of satisfactory evidence of service.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that service of the application for substitution of the deceased administratrix was unsatisfactory, as it was only effected upon Muri Mbugua & Company Advocates, who were not on record, and not upon Mukisu & Company Advocates, who are on record for the petitioner, nor upon the two widows, three sons, and seven daughters of the deceased or their advocates. The court held that it cannot determine the application until there is satisfactory evidence of service on all necessary parties, in accordance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The matter was therefore adjourned for mention to allow for proper service.
Court Disposition
Application for substitution not determined; matter adjourned for mention.
Orders
- The application for substitution is not determined at this stage.
- The matter shall be mentioned on 9th July 2025 for further directions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
In re Estate of Francis Omuzee Khasindu (Deceased) (Succession Cause 15 of 2010) [2025] KEHC 8101 (KLR) (11 June 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 8101 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Busia
Succession Cause 15 of 2010
WM Musyoka, J
June 11, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF FRANCIS OMUZEE KHASINDU (DECEASED)
Ruling
1. I am called upon to decide a Motion, dated 24th February 2025. It is for substitution of a dead administratrix. When it came up, on 6th May 2025, I was informed that it had been served.
2. I have perused the record, and I have noted that service was effected upon Muri Mbugua & Company Advocates, via email, on 25th March 2025. I have very closely scrutinised the record, to establish whether the said Muri Mbugua & Company Advocates, are on record, and I have been unable to find evidence of that.
3. The only other Advocates, on record, apart from JO Makali & Company, Advocates for the applicant, is Mukisu & Company Advocates, for the petitioner. Mukisu & Company, Advocates, was not served.
4. The service of the application was unsatisfactory. I shall not determine the application before I see satisfactory evidence of service on the parties, being the two widows of the deceased, and his three sons and seven daughters, or their Advocates.
5. The matter shall be mentioned on 9th July 2025.
DELIVERED, VIA EMAIL, DATED AND SIGNED IN CHAMBERS, AT BUSIA ON THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2025. WM MUSYOKAJUDGEMr. Arthur Etyang, Court Assistant.AdvocatesMs. Masengeli, instructed by JO Makali & Company, Advocates for the applicant.Mr. Mukisu, instructed by Mukisu & Company, Advocates for the petitioner.