[2023] KEHC 18568 (KLR)
The court found that although there was a plausible explanation for the applicant's default, including evidence that accounts had been filed and service attempted, the overriding consideration was the need to bring the long-standing succession matter to a close. The court determined that setting aside the ex parte...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 18568 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: John Makokha Okere; Objector: Anna Sheunda Mwambayi; Objector: Fredrick Anthony Okere; Objector: Timothy Namukuru Juma
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 129 of 1987
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- PJO Otieno
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Administration of Estates, Setting Aside 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
John Makokha Okere
Petitioner
Anna Sheunda Mwambayi
Objector
Fredrick Anthony Okere
Objector
Timothy Namukuru Juma
Objector
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the ex parte orders made on December 5, 2022 should be set aside in light of subsequent evidence of account filing and attempted service.
- 2 Whether setting aside the orders would serve the interests of justice or cause prejudice to the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although there was a plausible explanation for the applicant's default, including evidence that accounts had been filed and service attempted, the overriding consideration was the need to bring the long-standing succession matter to a close. The court determined that setting aside the ex parte orders would not serve the interests of justice but would instead delay the final distribution of the estate. The court was satisfied that the applicant would not suffer prejudice, as the current administrators had confirmed that the applicant would retain the portion of the estate they currently occupy. Therefore, the application to set aside the orders was dismissed to...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated December 6, 2022 is dismissed.
- Each party to bear own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
In re Estate of Sabina Namukuru Okere (Deceased) (Succession Cause 129 of 1987) [2023] KEHC 18568 (KLR) (30 May 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 18568 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kakamega
Succession Cause 129 of 1987
PJO Otieno, J
May 30, 2023
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SABINA NAMUKURU OKERE (DECEASED)
Between
John Makokha Okere
Petitioner
and
Anna Sheunda Mwambayi
1st Objector
Fredrick Anthony Okere
2nd Objector
Timothy Namukuru Juma
3rd Objector
Ruling
1. It is now settled that mistake or default alone, when capable of explanation, should not be the only reason to drive a litigant from the seat of justice. While the court was informed by both counsel present in court on the December 5, 2022, (Mr Omoiti and Ms Aligula) that no accounts had been filed, evidence has now emerged that the same had in fact been filed and evidence availed to show that service was attempted albeit that email address was erroneous hence service was not delivered. On that basis, I would set aside the orders of December 5, 2022.
2. However, the remedy of setting aside is employed to enable the ends of justice be reached. Here by virtue of the default order, new administrators were appointed and they assert that they are in the cause of having the estate transmitted to those entitled and have confirmed to court that the applicant will not be prejudiced by any adverse action like eviction but will in fact retain the portion of the estate he occupies currently.
3. The question the court must pose and answer is what benefit, or end of justice would be served by setting aside? The flip side of that question is what prejudice will visit the applicant if the default order is not set aside.
4. The court has anxiously considered the matter with full appreciation that its mandate is to navigate the litigation toward having the estate transmitted to those entitled. The court has given due consideration to the age of this matter in court for the last thirty six (36) years and takes the view that everything must be done now to bring the matter to a closure. The court considers the current administrators as new brooms in the house able to sweep cleaner. The court equally envisages no prejudice that stands to visit the applicant if status quo is allowed to maintain and the estate gets distributed.
5. On that basis, even though there is a plausible explanation for the steps leading to the exparte order, the court finds that setting aside will not further interests of justice but delay justice and ultimate conclusion of the administration.
6. For the foregoing reason, the application dated December 6, 2022 even though brought with admirable speed, is dismissed. Let each party bear own costs. Matter be heard in court on October 16, 2023 for purposes of distribution.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT THIS 30TH DAY OF MAY 2023. PATRICK J. O. OTIENOJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Omoiti for Administrator/RespondentNo appearance for Luchivya for the ApplicantCourt Assistant: Polycap