[2020] KEHC 3581 (KLR)
The court found that the application for removal of administrators was incompetent as it was not brought under the appropriate provisions for revocation of grant. There was no sufficient cause shown for the removal of the administrators, nor was there evidence that they had intermeddled with the estate as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 3581 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Tingo; Applicant: David Kiprotich Murgor; Respondent: Philista J. Chumo; Respondent: Emiliana Yego
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 296 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Removal of Administrators
- Outcome
- application struck out
- Judges
- OA Sewe
- Legal Topics
- Succession Administration, Removal of Administrator, Grant of Letters of Administration
- 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 Tingo
Applicant
David Kiprotich Murgor
Applicant
Philista J. Chumo
Respondent
Emiliana Yego
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Removal of Administrators
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether sufficient cause has been shown for the removal of the administrators of the estate.
- 2 Whether the administrators have intermeddled with the estate contrary to Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act.
- 3 Whether the application for removal of administrators is competent under the cited provisions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for removal of administrators was incompetent as it was not brought under the appropriate provisions for revocation of grant. There was no sufficient cause shown for the removal of the administrators, nor was there evidence that they had intermeddled with the estate as contemplated under Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. The administrators' dissatisfaction with the mediation settlement did not amount to a legal justification for their failure to act. Consequently, the application was struck out, and the court ordered the executors to take immediate steps to conclude the administration of the estate.
Court Disposition
application struck out
Orders
- The application for removal of administrators is struck out as incompetent.
- Immediate steps to be taken by the executors to conclude the administration of the estate.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 296 OF 2001
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF TINGO ARAP YEGO (DECEASED, ALSO KNOWN AS TINGO NGELO YEGO)
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF ADMINISTRATORS
BETWEEN
JOHN TINGO........................................1ST PETITIONER
DAVID KIPROTICH MURGOR........2ND PETITIONER
AND
PHILISTA J. CHUMO.............................1ST OBJECTOR
EMILIANA YEGO...................................2ND OBJECTOR
RULING
[1]This ruling is in respect of the application dated 10 February 2020. It was filed herein by the Objectors, Philista J. Chumo and Emiliana Yego, pursuant to Sections 45 and 46 of the Law of Succession Act, for orders that:
[a] spent
[b] The Administrators, namely, John Tingo and David Kiprotich Murgor, be summoned to attend Court to show cause why they are not ready and/or willing to effect transmission of the estate to the beneficiaries.
[c] In default of [b] above, the Administrators be removed from being the Administrators of the estate and that they be substituted by the Felister Chumo, Carlina Tongoi Sang and Milka Jelagat Chumo in order to complete the distribution of the estate.
[d] Any other order that the Court may deem fit to grant.
[2] The application was premised on the grounds that the deceased died intestate on 19 July 2001 and that his estate has remained under administration to date in spite of pleas by the beneficiaries that they be given their respective shares. The application is supported by the affidavit annexed thereto, wherein it was averred that this dispute has been pending before court since the year 2001; and that it was not until 18 October 2019 that it was settled via mediation and a Certificate of Confirmation issued. That since then, the Administrators have resumed their indolence and declined to finalize the process of transmission as required of them. It was on that account that the instant application was filed.
[3] The Administrators were duly served with the application; and, whereas the 1st Administrator attended court, he was unable to give any justification for their indolence, except that they are not happy with the Mediation Settlement. The 2nd Administrator did not attend court and no explanation was given for that failure. Thus, the matter proceeded ex parte on 3 March 2020. While acknowledging that this Succession Cause has been pending for long, the 1st Administrator completely failed to give any plausible justification for the state of affairs.
[4] I have nevertheless perused the record and noted that the deceased made a Will and set out his wishes therein as to how he wanted his estate handled. The provisions pursuant to which the application has been brought do not provide for the reliefs sought. And, as this is not an application for revocation of Grant, I take the view that no sufficient cause has been shown for the removal of the Administrators. There is no proof that they have intermeddled with the estate for purposes of Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. It is manifest therefore that the application is incompetent and is hereby struck out. It is further ordered that immediate steps be taken by the executors to conclude this longstanding matter.
It is so ordered.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY, 2020.
OLGA SEWE
JUDGE