[2023] KEHC 17942 (KLR)
The court held that the consent order appointing the applicant and respondent as administrators of the estate remains valid and binding, as previous attempts to set it aside have been declined. The court emphasized that the only avenue to challenge the consent order is by way of appeal, not by reintroducing the same...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 17942 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jonathan Njuguna Mbau; Respondent: Rachael Njoki Mbau; Beneficiary: Grace Wanjiku; Beneficiary: Jane Njeri; Beneficiary: Teresia Wairimu; Beneficiary: Rahab Muthoni; Beneficiary: Lilian Wambui; Beneficiary: Ruth Wanjiru; Beneficiary: Francis Muchiri; Beneficiary: Mary Njoki
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyahururu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 144 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Directions
- Outcome
- Directions issued; application to be heard by affidavit and submissions.
- Judges
- CM Kariuki
- Legal Topics
- Grant of Letters of Administration, Consent Orders, Revocation of Grant, Confirmation of Grant
- 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
Jonathan Njuguna Mbau
Applicant
Rachael Njoki Mbau
Respondent
Grace Wanjiku
Beneficiary
Jane Njeri
Beneficiary
Teresia Wairimu
Beneficiary
Rahab Muthoni
Beneficiary
Lilian Wambui
Beneficiary
Ruth Wanjiru
Beneficiary
Francis Muchiri
Beneficiary
Mary Njoki
Beneficiary
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Directions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the consent order appointing administrators can be set aside by this court.
- 2 Whether the grant issued and confirmed pursuant to the consent order can be revoked on the grounds advanced by the applicant.
- 3 Whether the application to revoke the grant should be heard via affidavit and submissions or by oral evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the consent order appointing the applicant and respondent as administrators of the estate remains valid and binding, as previous attempts to set it aside have been declined. The court emphasized that the only avenue to challenge the consent order is by way of appeal, not by reintroducing the same issues through fresh applications. The court further directed that the application dated January 24, 2023, seeking revocation of the grant, shall be heard by way of affidavit evidence and written submissions, rather than oral evidence, to avoid wasting judicial time and resources. The directions reinforce the finality of consent orders and the need for judicial efficiency in...
Court Disposition
Directions issued; application to be heard by affidavit and submissions.
Orders
- The application dated January 24, 2023, shall be heard via affidavit and written submissions.
- No oral evidence shall be entertained on the issues already determined by consent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
In re Estate of Mbau Kinyuru alias Mbau Kinyuru Njuguna (Deceased) (Succession Cause 144 of 2017) [2023] KEHC 17942 (KLR) (31 May 2023) (Directions)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 17942 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nyahururu
Succession Cause 144 of 2017
CM Kariuki, J
May 31, 2023
IN THE MATTER OF THE ETATE OF MBAU KINYURU alias MBAU KINYURU NJUGUNA (DECEASED)
Between
Jonathan Njuguna Mbau
Applicant
and
Rachael Njoki Mbau
Respondent
and
Grace Wanjiku
Beneficiary
Jane Njeri
Beneficiary
Teresia Wairimu
Beneficiary
Rahab Muthoni
Beneficiary
Lilian Wambui
Beneficiary
Ruth Wanjiru
Beneficiary
Francis Muchiri
Beneficiary
Mary Njoki
Beneficiary
Directions
1. After going through the record, I note that; By consent order on September 24, 2019 Jonathan Njuguna Mbea (Petitioner) and Rachael Njoki (Objector).
2. It was agreed by consent both to be appointed as Administrators of estate of Mburu Kinyuru Njuguna.
3. By this court’s ruling/judgment delivered on July 28, 2022, the court declined to set aside the consent order foresaid.
4. Subsequently the court in a ruling of December 20, 2022 rejected to re-entertain issue of prayer 5 in application which impugned consent order aforesaid in vain.
5. The consequently the two of the consent which remains valid and can only be impugned via an appeal against this court’s refusal to set aside the same.
6. To entertain on a via voce evidence on legal issue of the aforesaid matter is a of the consent of September 24, 2019 is the grants which was followed by the confirmation of grant.
7. The applicant now seek to revoke the grant issued vide consent of September 24, 2019 and confirmation thereof . The foundation is waste of judicial precious time.
8. The application dated January 24, 2023 shall thus be heard via affidavit and submissions.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NYAHURURU THIS 31STDAY OF MAY 2023………………………………..CHARLES KARIUKIJUDGE