[2024] KEHC 5760 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 5760 (KLR)

The court found that the application for limited grant ad colligenda bona was not urgent, as the deceased had died two years prior to the application. The applicants failed to prosecute the application after the duty judge declined to certify it as urgent and referred the matter to the Siaya High Court. In the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 5760 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mary Consolata; Applicant: Kevin Omondi Odede; Applicant: Samuel Oyola Oyola
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause E003 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Limited Grant Ad Colligenda Bona
Outcome
application marked as spent; file closed for archiving
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Limited Grant Ad Colligenda Bona, Succession Procedure, Urgency in Applications
Source Language
en
Family and Children Limited Grant Ad Colligenda Bona Succession Procedure Urgency in Applications

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Consolata

Applicant

Kevin Omondi Odede

Applicant

Samuel Oyola Oyola

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Limited Grant Ad Colligenda Bona

  1. 1 Whether the application for limited grant ad colligenda bona was urgent and merited certification as urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the application, having not been prosecuted, should be marked as spent and the file closed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for limited grant ad colligenda bona was not urgent, as the deceased had died two years prior to the application. The applicants failed to prosecute the application after the duty judge declined to certify it as urgent and referred the matter to the Siaya High Court. In the absence of any further action by the applicants, the court determined that the application was spent and ordered the file closed for archiving. The court exercised its discretion to manage its docket efficiently and prevent abuse of process by marking unprosecuted and non-urgent applications as spent.

Court Disposition

application marked as spent; file closed for archiving

Orders

  • The application dated 11th May 2021 is marked as spent.
  • The file is closed for archiving.