[2010] KEHC 3296 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants, having been registered as proprietors by transmission rather than succession, did not stand to lose anything by the revocation of the grant. Furthermore, the court held that it could not reinstate the former administrator, Wamukore Njoroge, as she had not applied to challenge the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 3296 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Mwaura Njoroge; Applicant: George Chege Njoroge; Respondent: Wamukore Njoroge
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 385 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons to Set Aside Revocation Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Probate and Administration, Revocation of Grant, Natural Justice, Transmission of Land
- 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
John Mwaura Njoroge
Applicant
George Chege Njoroge
Applicant
Wamukore Njoroge
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons to Set Aside Revocation Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants were condemned unheard in the revocation of the grant contrary to the principles of natural justice.
- 2 Whether the applicants, as registered proprietors by transmission, have standing to challenge the revocation of the grant.
- 3 Whether the court can set aside the revocation orders and reinstate the former administrator without her application or consent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants, having been registered as proprietors by transmission rather than succession, did not stand to lose anything by the revocation of the grant. Furthermore, the court held that it could not reinstate the former administrator, Wamukore Njoroge, as she had not applied to challenge the revocation or to be reappointed. Granting the orders sought would amount to forcing her to be an administrator without her knowledge or consent, which is not permissible. The application was therefore dismissed for lack of merit and standing.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 17th September, 2009 is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Succession Cause 385 of 1999
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF NJOROGE GACHOHO (DECEASED)
R U L I N G
Before me is a Summons dated 17th September, 2009 filed by m/s Nganga Ngigi & Company advocates for the applicants named as JOHN MWAURA NJOROGE and GEORGE CHEGE NJOROGE. The application was said to be for setting aside orders of revocation. It was filed under Rule 44 (3), (4) and (5) and Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules. The orders sought are as follows-
(a) That the exparte orders made on 21st October, 20-04 revoking the grant issued toWAMUKORE NJOROGEbe set aside.
(b)That costs be provided for.
The grounds of the application are firstly that the applicants were registered as proprietors by way of transmission of land parcel Number KIGANJO/KIGANJO/205; secondly, that the applicants as interested parties were never served with the application for revocation of grant; and thirdly that the applicants were condemned unheard against the principles of natural justice.
Also filed with the application was an affidavit sworn on 17th September, 2009 by one of the applicants JOHN MWAURA NJOROGE. It was deposed in the said affidavit, inter alia, that though the applicants were not parties in the application for revocation of grant, the exparte orders made on 21st October, 2004 condemned them unheard.
I have considered the application and documents filed. Having done so, I cannot grant the prayers sought.
The first reason why I will not grant the prayers sought is that I don’t see how the applicants can claim to have been condemned unheard. If indeed the land was registered in their name through transmission, not succession, then in my view they do not stand to lose anything by the said revocation. The second reason why the application will fail is that the applicants cannot force the former administrator to be an administrator WAMUKORE NJOROGE wanted to challenge the ruling of the court, she should have done so in person. She has not done so. The effect of granting the orders sought would be to appoint an administrator who has not applied to be an administrator, after the grant was revoked. That cannot be done by this court. There is no justifiable reason to do so. It will amount to forcing her to be an administrator without her knowledge and without the consent of interested parties beneficiaries. I will therefore not allow this application.
For the above reasons, the application is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 17th day of March, 2010.
George Dulu
Judge.