[2022] KEHC 11568 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 11568 (KLR)

The High Court found that it is not permissible for two succession causes to exist in respect of the same estate, as this creates a risk of conflicting orders and judicial embarrassment. Since Kakamega CMCSC No. 117 of 2016 was initiated first and had progressed further, it should be the lead file. The applicant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 11568 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Phanice Nyaloya Tsikhungu Murunga; Applicant: Daniel Murunga; Respondent: Phanice Nyaloya Tsikhungu; Respondent: Daniel Murunga
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Vihiga
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 6 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Consolidation and Review of Orders
Outcome
Application for consolidation allowed; application for review of orders referred to Chief Magistrate's Court.
Judges
WM Musyoka
Legal Topics
Succession Procedure, Double Grant of Administration, Consolidation of Causes, Pecuniary Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Family and Children Succession Procedure Double Grant of Administration Consolidation of Causes Pecuniary Jurisdiction

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phanice Nyaloya Tsikhungu Murunga

Applicant

Daniel Murunga

Applicant

Phanice Nyaloya Tsikhungu

Respondent

Daniel Murunga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Consolidation and Review of Orders

  1. 1 Whether two parallel succession causes can subsist in respect of the same estate.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court should consolidate Kakamega CMCSC No. 117 of 2016 with Kakamega HCSC No. 6 of 2017.
  3. 3 Whether the Chief Magistrate's Court had pecuniary jurisdiction over the estate.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that it is not permissible for two succession causes to exist in respect of the same estate, as this creates a risk of conflicting orders and judicial embarrassment. Since Kakamega CMCSC No. 117 of 2016 was initiated first and had progressed further, it should be the lead file. The applicant's claim that the Chief Magistrate's Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction was unsupported by evidence, as no valuation reports were provided. The High Court held that the court which made the orders (the Chief Magistrate's Court) is best placed to review them. Accordingly, the two causes were consolidated, with the Chief Magistrate's Court to determine the remaining issues.

Court Disposition

Application for consolidation allowed; application for review of orders referred to Chief Magistrate's Court.

Orders

  • Kakamega CMCSC No. 117 of 2016 is consolidated with Kakamega HCSC No. 6 of 2017.
  • Kakamega CMCSC No. 117 of 2016 shall be the lead file.