[2020] KEHC 8502 (KLR)
The court determined that since the succession cause had not been concluded, and in the interest of conclusively determining the matter, it was appropriate to allow the applicant to adduce further evidence. The court found that no prejudice would be suffered by the respondents as long as they were given an...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 8502 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Geoffrey Mugambi Kiara; Petitioner: Julius Gitobu Kiara; Petitioner: Nicholas Muriungi Kiara; Applicant: Patrick Muthomi Gitobu; Applicant: Paul Gitonga Mugo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 677 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Adduce Further Evidence
- Outcome
- Application to adduce further evidence allowed; throw away costs awarded to respondents.
- Legal Topics
- Succession Procedure, Adducing Additional Evidence, Estate Administration
- 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
Geoffrey Mugambi Kiara
Petitioner
Julius Gitobu Kiara
Petitioner
Nicholas Muriungi Kiara
Petitioner
Patrick Muthomi Gitobu
Applicant
Paul Gitonga Mugo
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Adduce Further Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be allowed to adduce further evidence in the succession cause.
- 2 Whether adducing additional evidence would prejudice the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that since the succession cause had not been concluded, and in the interest of conclusively determining the matter, it was appropriate to allow the applicant to adduce further evidence. The court found that no prejudice would be suffered by the respondents as long as they were given an opportunity to challenge the new evidence. However, to compensate the respondents for the inconvenience of reopening the case, the court awarded them throw away costs. The application to adduce further evidence was therefore allowed, subject to the payment of costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
Application to adduce further evidence allowed; throw away costs awarded to respondents.
Orders
- Applicant is allowed to adduce further evidence by calling the surveyor to testify and produce the mutation form.
- Respondents are awarded throw away costs of Ksh. 3,000 each.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 677 OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF M’IKIARA M’NGUTARI (DECEASED)
GEOFFREY MUGAMBI KIARA..................................................1ST PETITIONER
JULIUS GITOBU KIARA.............................................................2ND PETITIONER
NICHOLAS MURIUNGI KIARA................................................3RD PETITIONER
VERSUS
PATRICK MUTHOMI GITOBU...................INTERESTED PARTY/APPLICANT
PAUL GITONGA MUGO...............................INTERESTED PARTY/APPLICANT
RULING
By an application dated 24. 10. 2019 Patrick Muthomi Gitobu the grand child of the deceased sought that the court allows him to adduce further evidence by calling one Mr Mithika R.G a surveyor to testify and produce mutation form which they recovered showing the deceased had started process of subdividing and sharing his property to his children but the process was stopped. When the 1st Petitioner filed HCCC No. 127 of 2007 and obtained orders of inhibition.
The application was supported by the affidavit of Patrick Muthomi Gitobu sworn on 24. 10. 2019. the application was opposed vide Reply of Affidavit sworn by 1st Petitioner, Geoffrey Mugambi Kiara sworn on 16. 11. 2019.
In consideration that the cause herein has not been concluded and in the interests of conclusively determining the matter this court is of the view that no prejudice will be suffered if additional evidence the applicant feels is crucial is placed before court, provided the Respondents are given an opportunity to challenge the same.
I will however award the Respondents throw away costs of Ksh. 3000/- each since the applicants have sought to re-open the case. Orders accordingly.
HON A. ONG’INJO
JUDGE
RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN COURT ON23rd DAY OF JANUARY 2020.
In the presence of :
C/A: Kinoti :-
1st petitioner:-Mr Gichunge Muthuri Advocate – No appearance
2nd petitioner:- Mr Muthomi K holding brief
3rd petitioner:- Mrs Ntarangwi Advocate for 3rd Petitioner
Interested parties:- Mr Muthomi J for 1st and Interested party
Mr Kithinji for 2nd Interested party – No appearance
HON A. ONG’INJO
JUDGE
Order
Hearing on 12. 3.2020
Mr Muthomi J to serve Mr Kithinji Advocate.
HON A. ONG’INJO
JUDGE