[2025] KEHC 9649 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9649 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated that the deceased died in Limuru and that most of her assets are situated there. The court acknowledged the inadvertent filing in Kiambu, which may lack territorial jurisdiction. However, before making a substantive order on the transfer, the court required proof...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9649 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: __MISSING__; Respondent: __MISSING__
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kiambu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Family Miscellaneous Civil Case E023 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Ruling
Outcome
Mention for directions; no final orders on transfer issued pending proof of service.
Judges
DO Chepkwony
Legal Topics
Probate and Administration, Territorial Jurisdiction, Transfer of Suit
Source Language
en
Family and Children Civil Procedure Probate and Administration Territorial Jurisdiction Transfer of Suit

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

__MISSING__

Applicant

__MISSING__

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the High Court at Kiambu has territorial jurisdiction over the estate of the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the suit should be transferred to Limuru Senior Principal Magistrate Court for hearing and determination.
  3. 3 Whether proper service of the application was effected.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated that the deceased died in Limuru and that most of her assets are situated there. The court acknowledged the inadvertent filing in Kiambu, which may lack territorial jurisdiction. However, before making a substantive order on the transfer, the court required proof of service of the application to the respondent. The court confirmed that an affidavit of service had been filed and directed that it be availed in court before further orders could be made on the merits of the application. The matter was set for mention to confirm compliance and for further directions.

Court Disposition

Mention for directions; no final orders on transfer issued pending proof of service.

Orders

  • An affidavit of service to be filed and availed in court.
  • Matter mentioned on 30th June, 2025 for further orders.