[2021] KEHC 12644 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 12644 (KLR)

The court found that the application was not res judicata because the previous orders did not address execution or the preservation of property for satisfaction of the decree. The respondent's admission that one of the properties was acquired with estate funds and his lack of evidence regarding the value of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 12644 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Peter Gitau Wanyoike; Applicant: Anthony Wanyoike Mburu; Respondent: John Brown Ndungu Ikenye
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 64 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Execution Application Post Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part; prohibitory orders issued against specified properties pending valuation and execution.
Judges
AO Muchelule
Legal Topics
Administration of Estates, Execution of Decrees, Intermeddling With Estate, Injunctive Relief, Valuation of Property
Source Language
en
Family and Children Civil Procedure Administration of Estates Execution of Decrees Intermeddling With Estate Injunctive Relief Valuation of Property

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

Parties

Peter Gitau Wanyoike

Applicant

Anthony Wanyoike Mburu

Applicant

John Brown Ndungu Ikenye

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Execution Application Post Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be restrained from disposing of or charging certain properties pending satisfaction of the decree.
  2. 2 Whether a prohibitory order should issue against the respondent's properties to secure execution of the judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the application is res judicata in light of previous orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was not res judicata because the previous orders did not address execution or the preservation of property for satisfaction of the decree. The respondent's admission that one of the properties was acquired with estate funds and his lack of evidence regarding the value of the properties justified the issuance of prohibitory orders. The court ordered a prohibition against the transfer or charging of the listed properties to secure the estate's interests, pending valuation and subsequent execution to satisfy the outstanding decree. The costs of the application and valuation were to be borne by the respondent, recoverable as part of the decree.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; prohibitory orders issued against specified properties pending valuation and execution.

Orders

  • A prohibition order is issued against LR No. Nakuru Municipality Block 12/60, LR. No. Ngong/Ngong/55863, LR No. Ngong/Ngong/55862, LR No. Ngong/Ngong/55861, and LR No. 15064/74, Maki Estate – Thika.
  • Parties to agree on a common valuer within 14 days; if not, applicants to nominate one.