[2023] KEHC 23510 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 23510 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any evidence to support the allegations regarding the deaths of beneficiaries and did not sufficiently explain the delay from 2010 to 2023 in prosecuting the objection. While acknowledging that objection proceedings in succession matters do not have a statutory...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 23510 (KLR)
Parties
Petitioner: Benson Wafula Makonge; Objector: Jacob Simiyu Makonge; Applicant: Joseph Nyongesa Makonge
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 170 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Dismissed Objection
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
REA Ougo
Legal Topics
Succession Procedure, Reinstatement of Application, Delay in Prosecution, Beneficiary Rights
Source Language
en
Family and Children Succession Procedure Reinstatement of Application Delay in Prosecution Beneficiary Rights

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

Benson Wafula Makonge

Petitioner

Jacob Simiyu Makonge

Objector

Joseph Nyongesa Makonge

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Dismissed Objection

  1. 1 Whether the application to reinstate the dismissed objection should be granted despite the long delay.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided sufficient explanation for the delay from 2010 to 2023.
  3. 3 Whether the deaths of several beneficiaries justify reinstatement of the objection proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any evidence to support the allegations regarding the deaths of beneficiaries and did not sufficiently explain the delay from 2010 to 2023 in prosecuting the objection. While acknowledging that objection proceedings in succession matters do not have a statutory time limit, the court emphasized that parties are still required to prosecute their applications diligently. The absence of supporting documentation and the unexplained delay led the court to decline the request for reinstatement. The court further noted that any new objector is at liberty to file a fresh application, which will be considered on its own merits.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 23.3.2023 is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.