[2018] KEHC 9769 (KLR)
The court found that the estates in question belong to two different deceased persons and should be administered separately and distinctly. The existence of a surviving co-administrator in Succession Cause No. 1654 of 1993 means that administration of that estate can proceed without the need for consolidation or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 9769 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mary Ndila Mbuve; Applicant: Mathew Kyalo Mbuve
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 2105 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Rectification of Grant
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- A Ali-Aroni
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Rectification of Grant, Consolidation of Estates, Administration of Estates
- 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
Mary Ndila Mbuve
Applicant
Mathew Kyalo Mbuve
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Rectification of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Succession Cause No. 1654 of 1993 should be consolidated with Succession Cause No. 2105 of 2005.
- 2 Whether the petitioners in the current matter should be substituted with the administrator in Succession Cause No. 1654 of 1993.
- 3 Whether the assets in Succession Cause No. 1654 of 1993 should be shared equally among the beneficiaries.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the estates in question belong to two different deceased persons and should be administered separately and distinctly. The existence of a surviving co-administrator in Succession Cause No. 1654 of 1993 means that administration of that estate can proceed without the need for consolidation or substitution. The applicants failed to specify which new assets belong to which estate, and no sufficient reason was provided to justify consolidation. Therefore, the application for rectification of grant and consolidation was declined. The court directed that any further applications should be filed in the respective files and heard separately.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for rectification of grant and consolidation is declined.
- Appropriate applications to be filed in the respective files, which will henceforth be heard distinctly and separately.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
FAMILY DIVISION
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 2105 OF 2005
IN THE ESTATE OF REGINAH MUENI JONATHAN MBUVA
MARY NDILA MBUVE………………………………………1ST APPLICANT
MATHEW KYALO MBUVE…………………………………2ND APPLICANT
R U L I N G
1. Before court is an application dated 21st of September, 2015 seeking for rectification of grant to the extent that:
(a) Succession Cause No. 1654 of 1993 be consolidated together with this matter.
(b) That the Petitioners in this matter be substituted with the administrator in Succession Cause NO.1654 of 1993.
(c) That the assets in that Succession Cause No. 1654 of 1993 be shared equally amongst the beneficiaries.
2. The reasons given for the application is that the applicants’ mother was an administrator in Succession Cause No. 1654 of 1993, secondly the deceased in both this file and Succession Cause No. 1654 of 1993 are their parents, and they have since discovered more assets that belong to their parents.
3. In considering the application above the following facts stand out:
a. The estates belong to two different persons.
b. The estate of Jonathan Mbuve Mwilu has two administrators Regina Mueni Jonathan (deceased) and John Mutuku Mwilu.
Nothing is said of the 2nd administrator John Mutuku Mwilu and why he cannot complete the process of confirming and distributing the assets in Succession Cause No. 1654 of 1993.
c. It is not clear what ‘new assets’ belong to which of the deceased parents.
d. And why there should be consolidation in the 1st instance yet the two ought and can be administered separately and distinctly without any inconvenience and hardship to the beneficiaries.
4. Against the above the court declines the application for the reason that the estates are distinct and separate and though one administrator in Succession Cause No 1654 of 1993, is since deceased the co-administrator can proceed to confirm and distribute the estate. Thirdly it has not been stated which assets have been discovered in the separate estates.
5. Appropriate applications be filed in the respective files which will henceforth be heard distinctly and separately.
DATED, SIGNEDandDELIVEREDat NAIROBI this 15th DAY OF November, 2018.
…………………………………….
ALI-ARONI
JUDGE