[2020] KEHC 8507 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants and other beneficiaries are entitled to peaceful occupation of their respective shares as per the confirmed grant. The respondents, having failed to respond or attend court, did not rebut the allegations of interference and threats. To preserve the estate and maintain peace...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 8507 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jane Mwanje Manasseh; Applicant: Margaret Maraga Mudogo; Interested Party: Bernard Sore Lunga’ho; Respondent: Douglas Musamali Agoi; Respondent: Calvin Akello
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 1294 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Interlocutory Application for Injunctive Relief Pending Determination of Revocation Application
- Outcome
- Interlocutory injunctive orders granted pending hearing and determination of the revocation application.
- Judges
- A Ali-Aroni
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Administration of Estates, Grant Revocation, Beneficiary Rights
- 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
Jane Mwanje Manasseh
Applicant
Margaret Maraga Mudogo
Applicant
Bernard Sore Lunga’ho
Interested Party
Douglas Musamali Agoi
Respondent
Calvin Akello
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Interlocutory Application for Injunctive Relief Pending Determination of Revocation Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents should be restrained from interfering with the occupation and use of the suit properties by the applicants and other beneficiaries pending determination of the revocation application.
- 2 Whether the applicants and rightful beneficiaries should be allowed to continue occupying the suit premises pending hearing and determination of the revocation application.
- 3 Whether police enforcement of the court orders is warranted for peace and compliance.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants and other beneficiaries are entitled to peaceful occupation of their respective shares as per the confirmed grant. The respondents, having failed to respond or attend court, did not rebut the allegations of interference and threats. To preserve the estate and maintain peace pending the hearing of the revocation application, the court granted the substantive prayers sought by the applicants, including restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit properties and allowing the applicants and rightful beneficiaries to continue occupying the premises. The court further directed that the revocation application be heard expeditiously by way of oral...
Court Disposition
Interlocutory injunctive orders granted pending hearing and determination of the revocation application.
Orders
- Respondents, their agents or servants, or any other unauthorized persons are restrained from entering, trespassing, dealing, alienating, issuing threats, ploughing, planting, interfering with buildings, or otherwise dealing with L.R. No. ISUKHA/MURHANDA/938 and ISUKHA/MURHANDA/930 pending hearing and determination...
- Applicants, interested party, and rightful beneficiaries are allowed to continue occupying the suit premises pending hearing and determination of the revocation application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI
(FAMILY DIVISION)
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO 1294 OF 2001
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS GANIRA LUNGAHO (DECEASED)
JANE MWANJE MANASSEH
MARGARET MARAGA MUDOGO,suing as Administrators of the Estate of
THOMAS GANIRA LUNGAHO.......................................................APPLICANTS
BERNARD SORE LUNGA’HO...........................................INTERESTED PARTY
VERSUS
DOUGLAS MUSAMALI AGOI................................................1ST RESPONDENT
CALVIN AKELLO.....................................................................2ND RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The application before court is dated 16th September, 2019 and seeks the following substantive prayers:
i. That the honourable court be pleased to issue orders restricting the 1st and 2nd Respondents in person, their agents and or servants and or any other person without the authority of the Applicants herein from entering, trespassing, further dealings, alienating/laying claim, issuing threats to Jemimah Ajiza Ganira and the Applicants herein, further ploughing, planting trees/crops, interfering with the buildings thereon and or any other dealings against parcels of land L.R. No. ISUKHA/MURHANDA/938 and ISUKHA/MURHANDA/930 pending hearing and determination of this application and or further directions by the court.
ii. That this court be pleased to issue orders allowing the Applicants, interested party and the rightful beneficiaries to continue occupying the suit premises pending hearing and determination of this application and or summons.
iii. That for purposes of peace and compliance with these orders, the same be enforced by the OCS, SHISASARI Police Station in Shinyalu Constituency, Kakamega County.
2. The grant herein was confirmed on the 27th of May 2015 and the beneficiaries are said to have taken possession of their respective shares.
3. The Respondents appear not to have been happy with distribution done in line with the confirmed grant. As a result they filed an application for revocation and/or annulment of the grant on the 10th of February 2017. The said application is yet to be prosecuted.
4. The current complaint before court is that the Respondents are interfering with occupation by other beneficiaries who lawfully do so in accordance with distribution aforesaid, intermeddling with the property and threatening.
5. Despite service of the application herein, the Respondents failed to respond to the same or attend court and their bit is therefore unknown to the court.
6. For now I will grant prayer 2, 3, and 4 of the application pending hearing and determination of the application for revocation and or annulment of the grant.
7. In order to bring this very old matter to a quick closure I direct that:
i. The summons for revocation be heard by way of oral evidence.
ii. Parties do file and exchange witness statements within the next 30 days.
iii. Documents if any be filed and exchanged within 30 days of the date hereof.
iv. The matter be mention for further directions within the next 45 days of the date hereof.
v. Costs in the cause.
Dated and Delivered in Nairobi on this 6TH day of FEBRUARY, 2020.
ALI-ARONI
JUDGE