[2007] KEHC 3430 (KLR)
The court found that the summons for revocation of grant did not cite any legal provision as its basis, leaving the court to speculate whether the matter was an appeal or an application for revocation. The lack of clarity and failure to properly invoke the court's jurisdiction rendered the application incompetent....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 3430 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: John Maguru Njoroge; Appellant: Fredrick Mburu Njoroge; Respondent: Anne Wairimu Njoroge
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause 921 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- application struck out as incompetent
- Judges
- BP Kubo
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Succession Procedure, Competency of Application
- 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
John Maguru Njoroge
Appellant
Fredrick Mburu Njoroge
Appellant
Anne Wairimu Njoroge
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the summons for revocation of grant was properly before the court.
- 2 Whether the application was competent in law given the lack of cited legal provisions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the summons for revocation of grant did not cite any legal provision as its basis, leaving the court to speculate whether the matter was an appeal or an application for revocation. The lack of clarity and failure to properly invoke the court's jurisdiction rendered the application incompetent. The court emphasized that litigation must be conducted in accordance with established legal procedures and that parties must clearly state the legal basis for their applications. Consequently, the court held that it had not been properly moved and struck out the application as incompetent.
Court Disposition
application struck out as incompetent
Orders
- The application before court is struck out as incompetent.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Succession Cause 921 of 2004
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE NJOROGE MAGURU (DECEAESED)
JOHN MAGURU NJOROGE
FREDRICK MBURU NJOROGE..............................APPELLANTS
VERSUS
ANNE WAIRIMU NJOROGE...................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
This matter came up for hearing before me on 27. 06. 07. Learned counsel, Mr J.N. Mbuthia told the court that he was appearing for the applicant/objector while there was no appearance for petitioner. Mr. Mbuthia informed this court that Mr Karuga Wandai was on record for the petitioner, that he was served with the court papers on this matter on 19. 02. 07 and acknowledged receipt but had not appeared at the hearing for unexplained reasons. Mr Mbuthia also informed this court that directions had been given. Previously for this matter to proceed by way of viva voce evidence and that he wished to proceed with the hearing. This court was shown a copy of hearing notice for 27. 06. 07 which bore on its face a rubber stamp of Karuga Wandai & Co. Advocates of P.O. Box 1641, Thika with an endorsement ‘Received on 19th February, 2007’. On the basis of the foregoing, the court directed that the hearing should proceed and it did.
Mr Mbuthia then informed the court that what was coming up for hearing was summons dated o1. 04. 04 and on the basis of the foregoing he proceeded to call his only witness, John Maguru Njoroge who testified as objector witness (O.W.) 1. Thereafter Mr Mbuthia closed his case.
I have now perused the court record. The summons dated 01. 04. 04 on the basis of which the hearing proceeded cites John Maguru Njoroge and Fredrick Mburu Njoroge as “Appellants’ and Anne Wairimu Njoroge as ‘Respondent’. The summons is, however, for revocation of a grant issued by Thika Chief Magistrates Court under Succession Cause No.172 ‘A’ of 2003 to Anne Wairimu Njoroge, described as respondent herein, on 04. 09. 03. The parties who filed the summons dated 01. 04. 04 in the High Court are described as “Appellants’. No legal provision was cited as the basis of the summons dated 01. 04. 04. The question then arises: Is the matter before this court an appeal and, if so, brought under what legal provision or provisions? Or is the matter before the court an application for revocation as the pleading entitled ‘Summons for Revocation of Grant’ implies? If the latter, under what provision or provisions of the law is it brought? The court has been left to speculate on the aforesaid matters. That is not the way to conduct this type of litigation.
I hold that this court has not been properly moved, that the application before court is incompetent and the same is hereby struck out. Costs shall be in the cause.
Orders accordingly.
Delivered at Nairobi this 13th day of November, 2007.
B.P. KUBO
JUDGE