[2016] KEHC 6488 (KLR)
The High Court determined that, following the revocation of the previous grant and the issuance of a fresh grant to new administrators, the substantive succession cause remains within the jurisdiction of the Murang'a Magistrate's Court. The High Court did not take over the substantive cause but only addressed the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 6488 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rahab Wanjiru Mbogo; Applicant: Simon Ndichu Njoroge; Respondent: Objector and his siblings
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 1023 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Implementation of Consent Order and Directions for Further Proceedings
- Outcome
- Court file to be returned to Murang'a Chief Magistrate's Court for final disposal; High Court file to be transferred to Murang'a Probate and Administration Registry for further directions.
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Grant Revocation, Letters of Administration, Confirmation of Grant, Trust Property, Probate Jurisdiction
- 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
Rahab Wanjiru Mbogo
Applicant
Simon Ndichu Njoroge
Applicant
Objector and his siblings
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Implementation of Consent Order and Directions for Further Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court or the Magistrate's Court at Murang'a has jurisdiction to complete administration of the estate after revocation of the grant.
- 2 What steps should be taken to implement the consent order of 27th June 2006 regarding the estate of the deceased.
- 3 Whether the issue of trust property must be determined before confirmation of the fresh grant.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court determined that, following the revocation of the previous grant and the issuance of a fresh grant to new administrators, the substantive succession cause remains within the jurisdiction of the Murang'a Magistrate's Court. The High Court did not take over the substantive cause but only addressed the revocation application. Therefore, the lower court's file must be returned to Murang'a for final disposal, including the issuance and confirmation of the fresh grant, subject to the prior determination of the trust issue regarding Loc. 16/Mbugiti/1008 as ordered by Rawal J. The High Court's role was limited to facilitating the implementation of the consent order and ensuring...
Court Disposition
Court file to be returned to Murang'a Chief Magistrate's Court for final disposal; High Court file to be transferred to Murang'a Probate and Administration Registry for further directions.
Orders
- The court file in respect of Murang'a SRMCSC No. 72 of 1994 shall be returned to the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Murang'a for final disposal of the matter.
- The instant file in HCSC No. 1023 of 1996 shall be transferred to the Probate and Administration Registry of the High Court at Murang'a for further directions or orders as may be appropriate.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 1023 OF 1996
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SAMUEL MBOGO (DECEASED)
R U L I N G
1. On 27th June 2006, Rawal J. recorded an order by consent whose effect was to revoke the grant issued in Murang’a SRMCSC No. 72 of 1994 as well as the certificate issued following the confirmation of the said grant. A fresh grant was ordered to be issued to Rahab Wanjiru Mbogo and Simon Ndichu Njoroge.
2. One of the new administrators came back to court in an application dated 5th December 2012 seeking orders that could give effect to the consent order of 27th June 2006. The said application was allowed, whereupon the said administrator asked the court for further directions on the way forward.
3. The matter of the estate of the deceased was initiated at the Murang’a court, and came to the High Court for the revocation of the grant. The substantive cause in respect of the estate should still be the property of the Murang’a court. This court did not take it over. Once the revocation application was determined the lower court’s file ought to have been returned to that court for final disposal.
4. Administrators were appointed in the order of 27th June 2006. A grant of letters of administration intestate should have issued to them out of Murang’a SRMCSC No. 72 of 1994. Upon the fresh grant being made the administrators should have proceeded to apply afresh for confirmation of grant but being mindful of the order by Rawal J. that the issue of the deceased holding Loc. 16/Mbugiti/1008 in trust for the objector and his siblings be determined prior to the confirmation of the fresh grant.
5. To facilitate the implementation of the order made by Rawal J. on 27th June 2006, I do hereby make the following orders-
a. That the court file in respect of Murang’a SRMCSC No. 72 of 1994 shall be returned to the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Murang’a for final disposal of the matter in terms of paragraph 4 above; and
b. That the instant file in HCSC No. 1023 of 1996 shall be transferred to the Probate and Administration Registry of the High Court at Murang’a for further directions or orders, as may be appropriate.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016.
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE
In the presence of ……………………advocate for the applicant.