[2020] KEHC 9522 (KLR)
The court found that the petitioners did not conceal the objector's existence or seek to disinherit him, as the petition acknowledged him as the only beneficiary and explained his minority status at the time. The law prohibits minors from being granted representation, and the petitioners were entitled to apply in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 9522 (KLR)
- Parties
- Objector: Duane Njane Njengi; Petitioner: Jane Wanjiku Kangethe; Petitioner: Margaret Njoki Kangethe
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 987 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Objection to Grant of Letters of Administration
- Outcome
- Objection allowed in part; grant to be issued to objector and 1st petitioner.
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Grant of Letters of Administration, Capacity of Minor, Order of Preference, Probate Procedure
- 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
Duane Njane Njengi
Objector
Jane Wanjiku Kangethe
Petitioner
Margaret Njoki Kangethe
Petitioner
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Objection to Grant of Letters of Administration
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioners concealed the existence of the objector with the intention to disinherit him.
- 2 Whether the petitioners complied with the requirements of the Law of Succession Act and Probate and Administration Rules regarding notification and preference.
- 3 Whether the objector, now of age, is entitled to be granted letters of administration.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the petitioners did not conceal the objector's existence or seek to disinherit him, as the petition acknowledged him as the only beneficiary and explained his minority status at the time. The law prohibits minors from being granted representation, and the petitioners were entitled to apply in the circumstances. Now that the objector is of age, he ranks higher in preference for the grant. The court exercised its discretion to direct that the grant be issued to both the objector and the 1st petitioner, ensuring compliance with the statutory order of preference and safeguarding the objector's entitlement to the estate.
Court Disposition
Objection allowed in part; grant to be issued to objector and 1st petitioner.
Orders
- The objector and the 1st petitioner Jane Wanjiku Kangethe shall be the ones to whom the grant shall be given, after the petition has been gazetted (if it has not been).
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
FAMILY DIVISION
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 987 OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MARY MUTHONI KANGETHE - (DECEASED)
DUANE NJANE NJENGI................................................OBJECTOR
VERSUS
JANE WANJIKU KANGETHE............................1ST PETITIONER
MARGARET NJOKI KANGETHE....................2ND PETITIONER
RULING
1. The deceased Mary Muthoni Kangethe died intestate on 30th September 2017. She left LR No. Dagoretti/Kangemi/717 and LR No. Dagoretti/Riruta/6083. On 27th July 2018 her sisters Jane Wanjiku Kangethe and Margaret Njoki Kangethe petitioned this court for the grant of letters of administration intestate. The deceased had a son who died, leaving the objector Duane Njane Njengi as his only child. In the petition, the petitioners acknowledged that the objector was the grandson of the deceased who was the only beneficiary of her estate.
2. The objector filed this objection to the grant, saying that the petitioners had concealed his existence with the intention of disinheriting him. The petitioners denied that they sought to disinherit the objector. They stated that the petition had indicated that he was the only beneficiary of the estate of the deceased. The reason why they had not involved him in the petition, and this formed one of the objector’s complaint, was because he was underage (a minor) at the time. He has since become of age. The objector was born on 6th May 2000, and was therefore not yet an adult when the petition was filed. The petition indicated that he was underage. He attained age 18 on 6th May 2018. He filed the objection on 29th March 2019.
3. Under section 56(1) of the Law of Succession Act (Cap. 160) –
“(1) No grant of representation shall be made—
(a) to any person who is a minor, or of unsound mind, or bankrupt.”
4. There is no dispute that under section 66 of the Act, the objector was the closest person to the deceased, and the one entitled to petition for the grant. However, he lacked capacity to petition on account of being a minor. Having that incapacity, the court had the final discretion under the section to determine who would be given the grant to administer the estate of the deceased. Now that he is of age, he ranks higher in preference, and the court has to consider this ranking when exercising its discretion. Under rule 7(7) of the Probate and Administration Rules –
“(7) Where a person who is not a person in the order of preference set out in section 66 of the Act seeks a grant of administration intestate he shall before the making of the grant furnish to the court such information as the court may require to enable it to exercise its discretion under that section and shall also satisfy the court that every person having a prior preference to a grant by virtue of that section has—
(a) renounced his right generally to apply for a grant; or
(b) consented in writing to the making of the grant to the applicant; or
(c) been issued with a citation calling upon him either to renounce such right or to apply for a grant.”
I find that the disclosure in the petition that the deceased had left the objector as the only beneficiary, but that he was under age, fulfilled the requirements of the rule.
5. Under rule 26 of the Probate and Administration Rules, the petitioners were under obligation to let the objector, despite his age, know that they were going to petition for the grant. I consider, however, that the objector could not, in that incapacity, be able to oppose the petition, give his consent or renounce his claim to the petition.
6. On the facts available, I absolve the petitioners of blame in petitioning for the grant. They did not state that they stood to benefit from the estate. They declared that the objector was the only beneficiary.
7. In conclusion, and given the facts of this case, I allow the objection by declaring that the objector and the 1st petitioner Jane Wanjiku Kangethe shall be the ones to whom the grant shall be given, after the petition has been gazetted (if it has not been).
8. Costs shall be in the cause.
DATED and DELIVERED electronically, following consent of the parties, at NAIROBI this 8TH day of APRIL 2020.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE