[2014] KEHC 2685 (KLR)
The court found that the application to stay the removal of the prohibition was overtaken by events since the prohibition had already been removed. The applicant's claim for Ksh 120,000 was not directly related to the succession cause but was either a personal claim against the petitioner or, if against the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 2685 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Sitati Teka; Applicant: Stanley Lutorobwe Teka; Respondent: Rose Aliudza Esipeya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 856 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Stay of Removal of Prohibition
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- SJ Chitembwe
- Legal Topics
- Succession Proceedings, Removal of Prohibition, Estate Liabilities, Beneficiary Rights
- 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 Sitati Teka
Applicant
Stanley Lutorobwe Teka
Applicant
Rose Aliudza Esipeya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Stay of Removal of Prohibition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should stay the removal of a prohibition registered against plot number KABRAS/LWANDETI/349.
- 2 Whether the applicant's claim of Ksh 120,000 is related to the succession cause or is a personal claim against the petitioner.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to use the succession proceedings to enforce a personal debt.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application to stay the removal of the prohibition was overtaken by events since the prohibition had already been removed. The applicant's claim for Ksh 120,000 was not directly related to the succession cause but was either a personal claim against the petitioner or, if against the deceased, should be pursued as a liability of the estate during the confirmation of the grant. The court held that the applicant should not use the succession proceedings or prohibitions to enforce a personal debt, and that such actions would inconvenience the other beneficiaries. The proper course for the applicant is to pursue his claim through the appropriate civil process or during...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 25/7/2012 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT AT KAKAMEGA
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO: 856 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LABAN TEKA IKHALE...................DECEASED
JOHN SITATI TEKA.............................................................PETITIONERS
STANLEY LUTOROBWE TEKA
VERSUS
ROSE ALIUDZA ESIPEYA.................................OBJECTOR/RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The applicant’ application dated 25/7/2012 seeks to stay the orders removing a prohibition registered on 20/8/1982 against plot number KABRAS/LWANDETI/349. The application is supported by the applicant’s affidavit sworn on 25/7/2012. The petitioners filed grounds of objection to the application. Parties relied on their respective pleadings.
The main reason for the placement of the prohibition by the applicant against the suit land is that the petitioner had promised to pay the applicant Ksh 120,000/=. The applicant is apprehensive that since the prohibition has been removed, the petitioner will not pay him the money. The petitioner is his grounds of objection contend that the prohibition has already been removed and there is nothing to stay.
The pleadings show that the suit land belonged to the late LABAN TEKA IKHALE. The letters from the chief, Lwandeti location, dated 10/10/2011 indicate that there are about twenty beneficiaries. The reasons for the prohibition seem not to be related to the succession cause. The official search dated 10/10/2011 indicates that the land was charged to secure a sum of Ksh 30,000 on 12/5/2010. The beneficiary of the charge is the Kakamega Trade Development Board. There is also a caution that had been placed by STEWARD KABAKA who claims beneficiary interest. Another caution was placed in relation to Civil Suit No. RMCC 458/1980 Eldoret.
Since the prohibition placed by the applicant has already been removed and since the land is subject to succession, I do find that the application has been overtaken by events. All what the applicant can do is to pursue his claim as a liability to the deceased’s estate if his claim is against the deceased. However, if his claim is against the petitioner personally, then the applicant should not inconvenience the other beneficiaries. The applicant should not use the court to collect his debt through unprocedural means. The applicant is free to sue the petitioner and claim his sum of Ksh 120,000. The grant has not been confirmed. The applicant can pursue his claim during the confirmation of the grant.
In the end, I do find that the application dated 25/7/2012 lacks merit and the same is dismissed with costs.
Dated, delivered and signed at Kakamega this 17th day of September 2014.
SAID J. CHITEMBWE
JUDGE