[2016] KEHC 1093 (KLR)
The court held that the cross-listing of assets in two succession causes concerning different estates does not, by itself, prejudice the prosecution of either cause. Each party is at liberty to move the court in the appropriate cause if they believe prejudice may arise. The court cannot give directions in one cause...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 1093 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Michael Kamanu Wangewa; Respondent: Not stated
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 248 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Interlocutory Directions on Applications and Asset Distribution
- Outcome
- Directions issued; ongoing proceedings for distribution to proceed as scheduled.
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Estate Distribution, Probate Court Mandate
- 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
Michael Kamanu Wangewa
Applicant
Not stated
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Interlocutory Directions on Applications and Asset Distribution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the cross-listing of assets in two separate succession causes prejudices the prosecution of either cause.
- 2 Whether the court can give directions in one succession cause regarding the prosecution of another distinct succession cause.
- 3 How the probate court should prioritize applications and ongoing proceedings in the distribution of the deceased's estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the cross-listing of assets in two succession causes concerning different estates does not, by itself, prejudice the prosecution of either cause. Each party is at liberty to move the court in the appropriate cause if they believe prejudice may arise. The court cannot give directions in one cause regarding the prosecution of another unless the causes are consolidated, which is not appropriate where the estates are of distinct individuals. The court emphasized that its primary mandate is the distribution of the deceased's estate and that ongoing proceedings should be prioritized to achieve this objective. Applications and replies should proceed in their own course, and...
Court Disposition
Directions issued; ongoing proceedings for distribution to proceed as scheduled.
Orders
- The ongoing proceedings for distribution of the estate are to proceed on 6th December 2016 as scheduled.
- No application for adjournment will be entertained on the scheduled date.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 248 of 2001
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KAMANU WANGEWA (DECEASED)
JUDGMENT
1. There are ongoing proceedings herein concerning distribution of the estate of the deceased.
2. Before those proceedings could be concluded, an application was lodged herein by one of the administrators, Michael Kamanu Wangewa, dated August 2016. It seeks that a date be given by the court for the hearing of an application for contempt of court dated 16th October 2014 and for an order directed against a Land Registrar respecting certain injunctive orders.
3. The said application came up for hearing on 7th September 2016, when counsel for the respondent prayed for leave to file a reply. Leave was granted and it was directed that the court file in respect of HCSC No. 2790 of 2012 be availed, as it was said to be related to the instant cause.
4. When the matter came up on 12th October 2016, the court was invited by counsel for the applicant to give directions on HCSC No. 2790 of 2012 as some of the assets sought to be distributed in that cause were also said to be listed for distribution in the instant cause.
5. I have perused the instant file, as well as the file in HCSC No. 2790 of 2012. The instant cause concerns the estate of Kamanu Wangewa, while HCSC No. 2790 of 2012 is in respect of the estate of the latter’s wife, Esther Wanjiru Kamanu. I have noted that there are two assets in HCSC No. 2790 of 2012 that are also listed in the instant cause.
6. There could be several reasons for the cross-listing of assets. However, that alone should not affect prosecution of either cause. If any party strongly feels that there could be prejudice to be suffered by such cross-listing, it should be up to that party to move the court appropriately in the cause concerned.
7. I cannot give any directions in this cause on how HCSC No. 2790 of 2012 is to be prosecuted, for that cause has not been consolidated with the instant cause. In my view the two cannot even be consolidated for they relate to estates of two distinct individuals. If any party feels that one cause ought to be stayed to await the prosecution of the other, then such party is at liberty to move the court appropriately in the proper cause. The same applies where a party feels that certain assets ought to be set aside or temporarily removed from the schedule of the assets to be distributed to await the outcome of proceedings in either cause.
8. I do not wish to prejudge the application dated 3rd August 2016 by giving directions on the application dated 16th October 2014. Let the respondent exercise his right of reply to the application dated 3rd August 2016, then directions will be given on its disposal. Those matters should take their own courses thereafter.
9. The primary mandate of the probate court is distribution of the estate of the deceased. That is what ought to be given priority. The ongoing proceedings are geared to achieve that objective. The said proceedings are scheduled for 6th December 2016. I trust that the parties are readying themselves for the further hearing of the matter, for I shall not entertain any application for adjournment on that date.
10. It is so directed.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016.
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE