[2025] KEHC 17019 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 17019 (KLR)

The court held that Rule 36 of the Probate and Administration Rules is clear in limiting the purpose of a grant ad colligenda bona to the collection and preservation of the estate, not for payment of school fees or related expenses. The applicants failed to demonstrate that their request met the threshold for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 17019 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: MWK; Applicant: BWK
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Thika
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause E027 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Limited Grant Ad Colligenda Bona
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
FN Muchemi
Legal Topics
Probate and Administration, Limited Grant Ad Colligenda Bona, School Fees Expenses, Preservation of Estate, Intermeddling With Estate
Source Language
en
Family and Children Civil Procedure Probate and Administration Limited Grant Ad Colligenda Bona School Fees Expenses Preservation of Estate Intermeddling With Estate

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MWK

Applicant

BWK

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Limited Grant Ad Colligenda Bona

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant a limited grant ad colligenda bona to allow withdrawal of funds from the deceased's bank account for payment of school fees and related expenses for beneficiaries.
  2. 2 Whether payment of school fees qualifies as preservation of the estate under Rule 36 of the Probate and Administration Rules.
  3. 3 Whether granting the orders sought would amount to intermeddling with the estate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Rule 36 of the Probate and Administration Rules is clear in limiting the purpose of a grant ad colligenda bona to the collection and preservation of the estate, not for payment of school fees or related expenses. The applicants failed to demonstrate that their request met the threshold for urgency and necessity under Rule 36. Furthermore, since the petition for grant of representation had only just been filed and no administrator had been appointed, there was no legal person authorized to administer the estate. Granting the orders sought would amount to intermeddling with the estate, which the court cannot permit. Accordingly, the application lacked merit and was...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 27th November 2024 is dismissed.
  • There shall be no order as to costs.