[2017] KEHC 6452 (KLR)
The court declined to grant the orders sought by the applicants because the affidavit evidence was insufficient. Specifically, the applicants failed to disclose the relationship between the citees, the composition of the estate, and whether there was consent from other family members or dependents. The court also...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 6452 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Z B; Applicant: M B; Respondent: M Z M B; Respondent: B B
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 863 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Appointment of Managers Under the Mental Health Act
- Outcome
- application declined at this stage
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Mental Capacity, Guardianship, Estate Management, Letters of 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
Z B
Applicant
M B
Applicant
M Z M B
Respondent
B B
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Appointment of Managers Under the Mental Health Act
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants should be appointed as managers and legal representatives of M Z M B and B B under the Mental Health Act.
- 2 Whether sufficient evidence has been provided regarding the relationship to the citees and the composition of the estate.
- 3 Whether the application is properly supported by consent from other family members or relevant documentation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to grant the orders sought by the applicants because the affidavit evidence was insufficient. Specifically, the applicants failed to disclose the relationship between the citees, the composition of the estate, and whether there was consent from other family members or dependents. The court also questioned whether the estate of the late M B was properly before it or should be addressed in the family court. The ruling emphasized the need for supplemental affidavit evidence, including confirmation of family members and the estate, before any orders could be made under the Mental Health Act. Without this information, the court could not be satisfied that the applicants were...
Court Disposition
application declined at this stage
Orders
- The application for appointment of managers and legal representatives is declined at this stage.
- Applicants may file supplemental affidavit evidence for the court's consideration.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
AND
IN THE MATTER OF MENTAL HEALTH ACT CAP 248 LAWS OF KENYA
HIGH COURT CIVIL MISC. APPL. 863 OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF M Z M B & B B
Ruling
1. The application dated 22nd December, 2014 is brought under section 26,27,28 and 29 of the Mental Health Act, Cap 248 and all other enabling provisions of the law. The application seeks the following orders:
(a) That Z B & M B be appointed as managers, attorney, guardian, legal representative and/or assigns of M Z M B & B B upon such terms the court may deem just.
(b) That this Honourable court be pleased to make orders granting the Applicants herein the right to manage the Estate of the said M Z M B & B B
(c) That this Honourable court be pleased to make orders granting the Applicants the right to manage the affairs of M Z M B & B B including the right to manage the estate of the late M B (deceased) on their behalf.
(d) That the costs of this application be in the cause.
2. The Applicants Z B and M B have described themselves as the sister and niece to the cited persons, M Z M B and B B. It is deponed that the citees have been ailing and have been under the Applicants care for a long time. According to the Applicants, the citees suffer from mental illness and need medical care and maintenance, hence the need to access the estate of M Z M B. Medical reports in respect of the citees have been exhibited herein. It is further deponed that the citees used to rely on the estate of the Late M B and that it is only fair and just that letters of Administration of the Late M B be confirmed to allow the Applicants to continue maintaining the citees. A death certificate for B B was later exhibited through a further affidavit filed herein. The death certificate reflects that B B one of the citees herein passed away on 14th November, 2016. A more detailed medical certificate in respect of M Z M B was also brought onboard.
3. It is noted that the relationship between the citees, M Z M B and B B is not disclosed herein. Be as it may the death certificate in respect of the said B B has been annexed to a further affidavit herein sworn on 27th February, 2017. There are gaps left behind by the affidavit evidence herein. For example, who are the immediate family members of M Z M B? What comprises the estate of the said M Z M B? is there a consent from other family members or dependents of M Z M B ? Any further documents e.g. letter from the chief to confirm who the family members are? How is the application herein related to the estate of the Late M B who is referred to in paragraph No. 11 of the affidavit sworn by the Applicants on 22nd December, 2014? Is the estate of the said M B not a matter that ought to be before the family court?
4. This court therefore declines to grant the orders sought at this stage. The Applicants may consider the filing of supplemental affidavit evidence for the courts consideration.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 4th day of April, 2017
B.THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE