[2024] KEHC 2423 (KLR)
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the applicant's claim as a purchaser of estate property, as such disputes fall within the remit of the Environment and Land Court or other competent civil courts. The Succession Court's role is confined to identifying beneficiaries and distributing the estate....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 2423 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Bernard Mbugua Nganga; Respondent: Fiona Jane; Respondent: Kantarama Smith
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause E2508 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Application for Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- preliminary objection allowed; application struck out
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Jurisdiction of Court, Creditor Claims in Estate, Beneficiary Status, Limitation of Actions
- 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
Bernard Mbugua Nganga
Applicant
Fiona Jane
Respondent
Kantarama Smith
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Application for Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court (Family Division) has jurisdiction to determine the applicant's claim as a purchaser of estate property.
- 2 Whether the applicant qualifies as a beneficiary or creditor of the estate under the Law of Succession Act.
- 3 Whether the application for revocation of grant is statute barred.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the applicant's claim as a purchaser of estate property, as such disputes fall within the remit of the Environment and Land Court or other competent civil courts. The Succession Court's role is confined to identifying beneficiaries and distributing the estate. If the applicant establishes his claim in the appropriate forum and obtains a decree, he may then be recognized as a creditor in the succession cause. The preliminary objection was therefore upheld, and the application for revocation of grant was struck out. The court declined to address the issue of limitation, holding that it should be determined by the appropriate court.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection allowed; application struck out
Orders
- The preliminary objection is allowed.
- The application dated 15th September 2022 is struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
In re Estate of Ute Hannelore Smith (Deceased) (Succession Cause E2508 of 2021) [2024] KEHC 2423 (KLR) (Family) (7 March 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 2423 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Family
Succession Cause E2508 of 2021
HK Chemitei, J
March 7, 2024
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE UTE HANNELORE SMITH(DECEASED)
Between
Bernard Mbugua Nganga
Applicant
and
Fiona Jane
1st Respondent
Kantarama Smith
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. The Applicant filed his application for revocation of the grant dated 15th September 2022 on the grounds that the grant issued to the Respondents ought to be revoked as he had an interest in the land parcel number 1055/23 registered in the name of the deceased.
2. In his supporting affidavit he argued that he purchased the same in 1998 for a sum of Kshs 1,400,000 and that the deceased and the co registered owner refused to transfer to him. For that reason, he was a beneficiary in the estate and therefore he ought to be heard.
3. The Respondents filed a preliminary objection on a point of law dated 31st July 2023 that this court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application as the same was a preserve of another court and in particular the Environment and Land court.
4. They further submitted that the matter was statute barred and consequently unenforceable legally.
5. That the Applicant was not a beneficiary within the meaning of Section 29 of the Law of Succession Act.
6. The parties were directed to file their submissions. At the time of writing this ruling the applicant had complied.
7. I think the issue to begin with is on the question of this court’s jurisdiction and its extent. There is no doubt that the applicants claim in the estate is that of a purchaser. According to him he paid a sum of Kshs 1,400,000 to the deceased. For some unknown reason the deceased and his partner did not transfer the land to him. They kept changing the goal posts.
8. Respectfully I do not think this court sitting as a Succession Court is able to interrogate such matters. Its remit is essentially on the question of who is a beneficiary to the estate and how it ought to be distributed. The Environment and Land court is in a better position to investigate the issues raised by the applicant.
9. If by any chance the said court finds that he had a stake in the suit land which comprises the estate herein then he automatically qualifies to be what is called a “creditor” to the estate. That decree shall thereafter be delivered to this court and be considered in the final distribution of the estate.
10. The court stated in In re Estate of Stone Kathuli Muinde (Deceased) [2016] eKLR that:” Such claims to ownership of alleged estate property, as between the estate and a third party, should be resolved through the civil process in a civil suit properly brought before a civil court in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and the Civil Procedure Rules. This could mean filing suit at the magistrates’ courts, or at the Civil or Commercial Divisions of the High Court, or at the Environment and Land Court. If a decree is obtained in such suit in favour of the claimant then such decree should be presented to the probate court in the succession cause so that that court can give effect to it.”
11. I think the same applies in equal measure in the situation at hand.
12. On the issue of the matter being time barred I do not think it is for this court to decide for the reasons stated above. The appropriate court shall decide on the issue touching on statute of limitation.
13. As to the question of being a beneficiary, that position will be well answered presumably after the relevant court has decided whether indeed there was an agreement between the deceased and the applicant. In essence, all is not lost to the applicant. He can still agitate his issues elsewhere and if successful then that decree can be enforced within this estate.
14. Suffice to state that for now I find merit in the preliminary objection and it is hereby allowed.
15. The application dated 15th September 2022 is hereby struck out with no order as to costs.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK THIS 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2024. H K CHEMITEIJUDGE