[2005] KEHC 1612 (KLR)
The court found that the complaints raised by the applicant had already been heard and determined in a previous ruling delivered on 8th September 2000. The grant of representation had been confirmed and a certificate of confirmation issued, signifying completion of the administration of the estate. The application...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 1612 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Paul Mumali; Applicant: Leonard Wanyonyi Khaemba; Objector: Patrick Shikuku Khaemba
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause 56 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Removal of Administrator
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Succession Administration, Removal of Administrator, Confirmation of Grant
- 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
Paul Mumali
Respondent
Leonard Wanyonyi Khaemba
Applicant
Patrick Shikuku Khaemba
Objector
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Summons for Removal of Administrator
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the administrator should be removed for alleged lack of diligence and unfairness to beneficiaries.
- 2 Whether the sale of estate land without consulting beneficiaries warrants removal of the administrator.
- 3 Whether the issues raised had already been determined in a previous ruling.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the complaints raised by the applicant had already been heard and determined in a previous ruling delivered on 8th September 2000. The grant of representation had been confirmed and a certificate of confirmation issued, signifying completion of the administration of the estate. The application was therefore without merit, being both vexatious and frivolous, and was dismissed with costs to the respondent. The applicant was ordered to personally bear the costs of the application.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The summons for removal of administrator is dismissed.
- The applicant shall personally meet the costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA Succession Cause 56 of 1999
AUGUSTINE KHAEMBA KATANI…………………………..…………DECEASED AND PAUL MUMALI………………………………………………….…….PETITIONER PATRICK SHIKUKU KHAEMBA & 2 OTHERS…………………...OBJECTORS
R U L I N G
In a summons dated 15th October 2001, Leonard Wanyonyi Khaemba, one of the beneficiaries sought to have Mark Paul Mumali, the administrator of the estate of Augustine Khaemba Katami, deceased, removed and replaced with Patrick Sikuku Khaemba and Leonard Wanyonyi Khaemba. He swore an affidavit in support of the application.
The administrator opposed the summons by filing a replying affidavit sworn on 21st November 2001.
The applicant claims that the administrator has not acted diligently in this matter hence he should be removed. He says he has been unfair to some of the beneficiaries.
He accused the administrator of having sold land measuring 1 acre due to the estate to one Hesbon Manyonge for Ksh.100,000/= without consulting the beneficiaries.
In his replying affidavit the administrator denied the applicant’s allegations. He accused the applicant of reagitating the same issues which were determined by this court in a ruling delivered on 8/9/2000.
I have considered the arguments raised in support and against the summons. I have perused the court record and I am satisfied that the complaints raised in the summons herein were heard and determined by this court in the ruling delivered on 8th September 2000. The grant was confirmed and a certificate of confirmation dated 26th June 2002 was issued by this court hence the Administration of the estate of Augustine Khaemba Katami, deceased is complete. This fact is conceded and confirmed by Mr. Were for the applicant.
I find this application lacking in merit. The same in my view, is vexatious and frivolous. It is dismissed with costs to the Respondent. The applicant should personally meet the cost of the application.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 13th DAY OF May 2005
J.K. SERGON
JUDGE