[2017] KEHC 6128 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 6128 (KLR)

The court found that the respondents, despite being served, failed to provide any explanation or response for their refusal to sign the consent forms necessary for confirmation of grant. Given the protracted delay since 1999 and the need for finality in succession matters, the court held that the process cannot be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 6128 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Daudi Ngure Chege; Applicant: Anthony Maina Mburu; Respondent: Mary Njeri; Respondent: Purity Wangui Waithira; Respondent: Peter Kinuthia Mburu; Respondent: David Ngure; Respondent: Fredrick Chege
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 1775 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Compel Respondents to Sign Consent Forms for Confirmation of Grant
Outcome
Application allowed. Respondents to be served with application for confirmation and proposed distribution list for their signatures/consent. In default, court to confirm grant as proposed by administrators.
Legal Topics
Succession, Confirmation of Grant, Administration of Estates, Consent to Distribution
Source Language
en
Family and Children Succession Confirmation of Grant Administration of Estates Consent to Distribution

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daudi Ngure Chege

Applicant

Anthony Maina Mburu

Applicant

Mary Njeri

Respondent

Purity Wangui Waithira

Respondent

Peter Kinuthia Mburu

Respondent

David Ngure

Respondent

Fredrick Chege

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Compel Respondents to Sign Consent Forms for Confirmation of Grant

  1. 1 Whether the court should compel the respondents to sign consent forms for confirmation of grant and distribution of the estate.
  2. 2 Whether the administrators can proceed with confirmation of grant in the absence of consent from some beneficiaries.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents, despite being served, failed to provide any explanation or response for their refusal to sign the consent forms necessary for confirmation of grant. Given the protracted delay since 1999 and the need for finality in succession matters, the court held that the process cannot be held at ransom by non-cooperating beneficiaries. The court therefore ordered that the respondents be served with the application for confirmation and the proposed distribution list for their signatures or consent, and in default, the court would proceed to confirm the grant as proposed by the administrators, regardless of the respondents' absence or lack of consent.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Respondents to be served with application for confirmation and proposed distribution list for their signatures/consent. In default, court to confirm grant as proposed by administrators.

Orders

  • Respondents to be served with the application for confirmation and proposed distribution list for their signatures/consent.
  • In default of signing or consenting, the court shall proceed to confirm the grant as proposed by the administrators.