[2017] KEHC 1029 (KLR)
The court found that the administrators failed to comply with its order to complete administration of the estate within thirty days, and instead sought to reopen distribution after the deadline had lapsed. The administrators' inability to cooperate and their disregard for court orders justified the revocation of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 1029 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Leah Wanjiru Muigai; Respondent: Joseph Ruhiu Muigai
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 763 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Redistribution and Compliance With Court Orders
- Outcome
- Grant revoked; application for redistribution dismissed; new administrators to be appointed.
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Succession Administration, Grant Revocation, Estate Distribution, Non Compliance With Court Orders
- 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
Leah Wanjiru Muigai
Applicant
Joseph Ruhiu Muigai
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Redistribution and Compliance With Court Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the administrators complied with the court's order to complete administration of the estate within the stipulated period.
- 2 Whether the application for redistribution of the estate after the expiry of the compliance period should be entertained.
- 3 Whether the continued disagreement between administrators justifies revocation of the grant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the administrators failed to comply with its order to complete administration of the estate within thirty days, and instead sought to reopen distribution after the deadline had lapsed. The administrators' inability to cooperate and their disregard for court orders justified the revocation of the grant under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. The court emphasized that estate administration should not be indefinite and that non-compliance with court orders cannot be tolerated. The application for redistribution was dismissed, and the court ordered the appointment of new administrators, excluding the current ones, to ensure proper administration of the estate.
Court Disposition
Grant revoked; application for redistribution dismissed; new administrators to be appointed.
Orders
- The grant made to Leah Wanjiru Muigai and Joseph Ruhiu Muigai on 10th July 1997 is hereby revoked.
- Fresh administrators shall be appointed and shall not include Leah Wanjiru Muigai and Joseph Ruhiu Muigai.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 763 OF 1997
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PETER MUIGAI RUHIU (DECEASED)
RULING
1. The administrators of the estate herein, Leah Wanjiru Muigai and Joseph Ruhiu Muigai, are widow and son, respectively, of the deceased, and mother and son. Their grant was confirmed on 21st May 1999. The estate has not been distributed to date in accordance with the distribution schedule approved by the court.
2. By a ruling that I delivered on 18th November 2016, I directed the administrators to complete administration of the estate herein within thirty (30) days. Rather than complete administration as ordered, one of the administrators, the widow, moved the court by an application dated 6th January 2017, that is outside the thirty (30) days that I had allowed them to complete administration, filed herein on 23rd February 2017, asking the court to redistribute the estate, saying that the same could not be distributed as ordered in 1999. The application is opposed by her co-administrator, who claims that some of the assets sought to be distributed belonged to him, some were still encumbered by a bank, some had cases in court, while some are common assets either because they are burial sites or the matrimonial home or commercial property from which the entire family derives livelihood.
3. Two issues arise from the application. One, the court had given the administrators time to wind up the administration of the estate in terms of the distribution ordered by the court in 1999. The duration given was thirty days. The said duration expired without compliance, and the applicant only moved to court after the expiration of the period given to it by the court. Secondly, the issue of the redistribution of the estate is being raised only after the court commanded the administrators to wind up administration for a lot of time had expired after the court ordered distribution. The second issue is that the two administrators are not in agreement with respect to the administration of the estate. They are acting at cross purposes. It would appear that it is this failure to see eye to eye that is responsible for the non-completion of administration.
4. Non-compliance with court orders is something that the court ought not to countenance. Indeed, in my order of 18th November 2016 I had stated that non-compliance with the orders made in the ruling delivered that day would expose the grant herein to revocation by the court on its own motion in terms of the discretion given to it by section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, Cap 160, Laws of Kenya. However, despite that caution, the administrators still did not complete administration as ordered, and if they were encountering any difficulties, they did not move the court appropriately within the time given for extension of time. I have no option but to move under section 76 and revoke the grant as the administrators clearly do not respect court orders. The administration of an estate should not go on forever and the court should not allow administrators to keep the affairs of an estate in a state of flux, and should not adopt a cavalier attitude towards court orders.
5. Regarding redistribution, I note that I had on 15th March 2017 directed that the application be disposed of by way of written submissions. The proposed redistribution is challenged and there is on record a detailed affidavit giving reasons for the opposition. The ideal way of resolving this comprehensively would be by way of oral evidence.
6. The orders that I am moved to make in the circumstances are as follows –
a. That the grant made to Leah Wanjiru Muigai and Joseph Ruhiu Muigai on 10th July 1997 is hereby revoked;
b. That fresh administrators shall be appointed and shall not include Leah Wanjiru Muigai and Joseph Ruhiu Muigai;
c. That the new administrators shall apply afresh for confirmation of the grant to be made to them;
d. That the matter shall be mentioned after thirty (30) days of the date herein for the purpose of appointment of administrators; and
e. That, for avoidance of doubt, the application dated 23rd February 2017 is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017.
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE