[2021] KEHC 13478 (KLR)
The court found that although most of the deceased's properties are in Muranga, the applicant had participated in the Nairobi proceedings for a long period without raising the issue of transfer. The court also noted that transferring the matter to Muranga would require it to be registered as a new matter, likely...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 13478 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Benedette Ruguru Njoroge; Respondent: Veronica Muthoni Kimani; Respondent: Anne Wanjiru Kimani
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 2655 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Transfer Proceedings
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Succession Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Court, Transfer of Succession Cause
- 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
Benedette Ruguru Njoroge
Applicant
Veronica Muthoni Kimani
Respondent
Anne Wanjiru Kimani
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Transfer Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the succession cause should be transferred from the High Court at Nairobi to the High Court at Muranga for hearing and disposal.
- 2 Whether the transfer would serve the interests of justice and convenience for the parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although most of the deceased's properties are in Muranga, the applicant had participated in the Nairobi proceedings for a long period without raising the issue of transfer. The court also noted that transferring the matter to Muranga would require it to be registered as a new matter, likely causing further delay in its disposal. The convenience of the parties, many of whom reside in Nairobi and whose advocates are based there, also weighed against transfer. The court concluded that the interests of justice and expeditious determination would be better served by retaining the matter in Nairobi, and therefore dismissed the application for transfer.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to transfer the succession cause to the High Court at Muranga is dismissed.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
FAMILY DIVISION
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 2655 OF 2008
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES KIMANI NJOROGE - DECEASED
BENEDETTE RUGURU NJOROGE.....................APPLICANT
VERSUS
VERONICA MUTHONI KIMANI..............1ST RESPONDENT
ANNE WANJIRU KIMANI........................2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The deceased James Kimani Njoroge died on 31st January 1997. Since 29th April 2004 this succession dispute has been before this court, and, quite unfortunately, it has not been resolved. It does not appear to be in dispute that the deceased hailed from Muranga. Most of his properties, according to the affidavit sworn to support the application for grant, are in Muranga. The deceased’s widows Veronica Muthoni Kimani and Ann Wanjiru Kimani (the respondents) decided to file the matter in Nairobi. The applicant Benedette Ruguru Njoroge was the deceased’s sister whose claim that the deceased held the property in trust for his siblings. On 31st July 2019 she filed this application to have the matter transferred to the High Court at Muranga for hearing and disposal. I note that she has all along participated in the proceedings before this court.
2. Veronica Muthoni Kimani opposed the application. Although she agreed that three of the deceased’s properties are located in Muranga, she pointed out that he also had a property in Kipipiri (in Nyandarua) and in Ruiru (in Kiambu). So, it is common ground that the deceased’s substantial estate was in Muranga. Veronica indicted that the estate has various beneficiaries some of whom live in Nairobi, and that their advocates are in Nairobi. It would therefore be convenient, she stated, for the matter to be heard in Nairobi.
3. If the matter is transferred to the High Court at Muranga it will be registered as a new matter, and that may further delay its disposal.
4. There has been a High Court at Muranga for quite some time now. It is not clear why the applicant decided in August 2019 to bring the application, when all along the matter was in Nairobi and she was participating. She did not depone that she lives in Muranga.
5. In my estimation, the transfer of this matter to the High Court in Muranga will only delay its hearing and determination. Parties should today take a hearing date for the matter.
6. The consequence is that the application is dismissed. I make no orders as to costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE