[2025] KEHC 7100 (KLR)
The High Court held that its jurisdiction under the Mental Health Act is confined to the appointment of guardians and managers for persons with mental incapacity and the management of their affairs. After delivering judgment and making such appointments, the court becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 7100 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: BNK; Applicant: SWK; Applicant: VWM
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E185 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Revoke Guardianship and Management Appointment
- Outcome
- application struck out for want of jurisdiction
- Judges
- PM Nyaundi
- Legal Topics
- Mental Capacity, Guardianship, Estate Management
- 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
BNK
Respondent
SWK
Applicant
VWM
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Revoke Guardianship and Management Appointment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to revoke the appointment of a guardian and manager after judgment under the Mental Health Act.
- 2 Whether the respondent's alleged waste of the estate warrants revocation of his appointment as guardian and manager.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that its jurisdiction under the Mental Health Act is confined to the appointment of guardians and managers for persons with mental incapacity and the management of their affairs. After delivering judgment and making such appointments, the court becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to entertain subsequent disputes regarding the management of the estate, including allegations of waste or mismanagement by a guardian. Such disputes must be brought before a court with the appropriate mandate to adjudicate on matters such as the validity of land sales, share transfers, or bank withdrawals. As no submissions were filed and the application sought relief outside the...
Court Disposition
application struck out for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
- There shall be no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
In re GKM (Miscellaneous Application E185 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 7100 (KLR) (Family) (29 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 7100 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Family
Miscellaneous Application E185 of 2023
PM Nyaundi, J
May 29, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF GKM
AND
MENTAL HEALTH ACT CAP 248 LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE RIGHTS OF OLDER MEMBERS OF SOCIETY UNDER ARTICLE 57 OF THE CONSTITUION
Ruling
1. By Judgment dated 18th January 2024, the Court appointed BNK, SWK AND VWM as guardians and managers of the Estate of the subject herein.
2. It is now alleged that the Respondent herein, BNK is wasting the estate and therefore his appointment should be revoked.
3. Notwithstanding that the Court directed that the parties file submissions, at the time of writing this ruling none of the parties had filed their submissions.
4. In considering this application I am mindful of the mandate of this Court. It is limited to considering an application presented under the Mental Health Act and if satisfied make orders for the guardianship of the Subject and the management of his/ her affairs.
5. On delivery of judgment the Court is functus officio, so that whereas now there are disputes on the management of the Estate, the proper forum would be the Court that has the mandate to challenge the validity of the sale of land, the transfer of shares from the Company and the withdrawal of money from bank account. That does not lie with this Court. The Co Guardians (Applicants) as Guardians and Manager of the Estate of the deceased have the wherewithal to challenge the actions of the Respondent herein but before a Court of competent jurisdiction.
6. Once it is established that the respondent has acted contrary to the mandate conferred on him, this Court will proceed to revoke that appointment.
7. Accordingly, the application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.It is so ordered
SIGNED DATED AND DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY 2025. P M NYAUNDIHIGH COURT JUDGEIn the presence ofNo appearance by partiesFardosa Court Assistant