[2009] KEHC 77 (KLR)
The court found that while the applicant demonstrated mental infirmity and the need for a next friend, the application was procedurally defective because it lacked a written authority signed by the proposed next friend, as required by Order XXXI Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The absence of this mandatory...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 77 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Teresia Khisa Wanyonyi; Respondent: Wanyonyi Mwasame Namunyu (deceased); Respondent: Mr. Njoroge
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 86 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Appointment of Next Friend
- Outcome
- application struck out with leave to file afresh
- Judges
- CA Ombija
- Legal Topics
- Appointment of Next Friend, Mental Incapacity, Procedure for Guardianship
- 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
Teresia Khisa Wanyonyi
Applicant
Wanyonyi Mwasame Namunyu (deceased)
Respondent
Mr. Njoroge
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Appointment of Next Friend
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant, due to mental infirmity, requires a next friend to represent her interests in the succession proceedings.
- 2 Whether the application for appointment of a next friend complies with the procedural requirements under Order XXXI Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the applicant demonstrated mental infirmity and the need for a next friend, the application was procedurally defective because it lacked a written authority signed by the proposed next friend, as required by Order XXXI Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The absence of this mandatory document rendered the application fatally defective. Consequently, the court struck out the application but granted leave to file a fresh, proper application that complies with the procedural requirements.
Court Disposition
application struck out with leave to file afresh
Orders
- The application is struck out for want of compliance with procedural requirements.
- The applicant is granted leave to file a fresh proper application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT KITALE
Succession Cause 86 of 2004
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OFWANYONYI MWASAME NAMUNYU....DECEASED
VERSUS
TERESIA KHISA WANYONYI.......................................................................................APPLICANT
R U L I N G
By a Notice of Motion (undated) but filed on 16th October 2009, pursuant to the provisions of order XXXI Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, the applicant seeks orders:
1. That this application be certified urgent and heard ex-pate in the first instance.
2. That Florence Auma, be made a next friend to Teresia Khisa Wanyonyi, who is incapable of protecting her interest in this case.
3. That any other order that this court may deem just and expedient to grant.
4. That the costs of this application be provided for.
The application is based on the grounds.
(a)The applicant has suffered mental infirmity and is incapable of presenting her case.
(b)In the interest of justice application should be allowed.
(c)No prejudice shall be occasioned if the order is granted.
(d)To enable the court finalise this case the order should be granted.
The application is predicated upon the annexed affidavit of Florence Auma, sworn on the 16th day of October 2009.
On behalf of the applicant, it was argued that Teresia Khisa Wanyonyi, is her biological mother aged 65 years.
That the mental status of the applicant has since deteriorated – psychiatric problem. In support of that medical condition is a medical report exhibited as “FA1”. By reason of the foregoing she is not in a position to conduct her personal affairs hence the need to appoint a next friend to conduct the law suit filed herein.
The respondent neither filed grounds of opposition nor replying affidavit.
Order XXXI Rule 15 provides thus:
“ The provisions contained in rules 1 to 14, so far
as they are applicable, shall extend to persons
adjudged to be of sound mind, and to persons
who though not so adjudged are found by the
court on enquiry, by reason of unsoundness
of mind or mental infirmity, to be incapable
of protecting their interests when suing or
being sued”.
It is axiomatic that an order for appointment of a guardian ad litem may be obtained upon application in the name and on behalf of a person of unsound mind in like manner as a minor.
Such application shall be supported by an affidavit verifying the fact that the proposed guardian has no interest in the matters in controversy in the suit adverse to that of a person of unsound mind or minor; and that he is not, in the case of a next friend, a defendant, or, in the case of a guardian ad litem a plaintiff.
Before the name of any person shall be used in any action as next friend of a person of unsound mind or minor such a person shall sign a written authority for that purpose and the authority shall be filed.
I have scanned through the application and find as a fact that no written authority for that purpose has been signed and filed with the application.
For the foregoing reasons the application fails and is struck out. The applicant is granted leave to file a fresh proper application.
Dated and delivered at Kitale this 12th day of November, 2009.
NRO OMBIJA
JUDGE
Florence Auma in person.
Mr. Njoroge for Respondent.