[2004] KEHC 740 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants, particularly the first applicant, were not aware of the petition for letters of administration and were excluded from the process, as the petition was filed secretly without family consultation. The legislature anticipated such situations and provided for enlargement of time...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 740 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samuel Maweu Luka; Applicant: Daniel Mutuku Maweu; Respondent: Simon Kioko Mai; Respondent: Rael Mutave Mai
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Probate & Administration 198 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Probate Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Objection Out of Time
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Probate and Administration, Letters of Administration, Enlargement of Time, Notice of Objection
- 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
Samuel Maweu Luka
Applicant
Daniel Mutuku Maweu
Applicant
Simon Kioko Mai
Respondent
Rael Mutave Mai
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Probate Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Objection Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants should be granted leave to file a notice of objection to the petition for letters of administration intestate out of time.
- 2 Whether the applicants, as interested parties, were properly excluded from the initial petition process.
- 3 Whether the 2nd applicant, as a grandson of the deceased, has locus standi to object.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants, particularly the first applicant, were not aware of the petition for letters of administration and were excluded from the process, as the petition was filed secretly without family consultation. The legislature anticipated such situations and provided for enlargement of time under Rule 67 of the Probate and Administration Rules to ensure that no interested party is locked out. The court also noted that even though the second applicant is a grandson and not initially listed as a beneficiary, he should be allowed to demonstrate his interest at this stage. The respondents failed to provide any justification for the secrecy or to challenge the applicants'...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The application dated 26/1/04 is allowed.
- Applicants are granted leave to file notice of objection to the petition for letters of administration intestate out of time.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
PROBATE & ADMINISTRATION NO. 198 OF 2003
LUKA MAI KASUNI :::::::::::::::::::: DECEASED
VERSUS
1. SIMON KIOKO MAI
2. RAEL MUTAVE MAI :::::::::: PETITIONERS
R U L I N G
Before me is the application dated 26/1/04. It is brought pursuant to Rule 67 of the Probate and Administration Rules seeking orders that the two applicants Samuel Maweu Luka and Daniel Mutuku Maweu be granted leave to file notice of objection to the petition for letters of administration intestate out of time and that they do file an answer to petition and cross petition and that costs be provided for.
The 1st applicant swore an affidavit dated 26/1/04 in which he states that the petitioners are his younger brother and mother respectively whereas the deceased was his father and 2nd applicant is his son. He states that he approached the chief for an introductory letter to file a petition but found that it had been issued to his younger brother and on checking the court’s registry, found the application for grant to have been filed without his consent on 28/7/03. He filed a notice of objection dated 28/7/03 which was not signed by all objectors and hence invalid. He was not aware of the gazettement of the petition on 18/7/03 and that is why he did not lodge an objection. Though the affidavit in reply is headed as further replying affidavit that is not the case as the replying affidavit was not commissioned and the court gave the Respondents time to have it commissioned but it was not done. The one termed further replying affidavit filed in court on 4/6/04 is the only affidavit in opposition to the application. The application of the applicant is said to be frivolous and an after thought; that if the applicants were indeed serious they should have filed objection within 30 days of gazettement; that the 2nd objector is a stranger to the proceedings as he is the grandson of the deceased and a beneficiary of the 1st objector.
From that petition filed, the first applicant is listed as a beneficiary to the deceased’s estate. 2nd objector is not registered as a beneficiary. Though the 1st applicant is a beneficiary it seems he was not aware of the petition filed. The Respondents have not challenged the assertion that the filing of the petition was done secretly. No reason is given by Respondent for the secrecy. It would have been expected that the family would discuss and agree on who the petitioners would be.
It is the applicants’ contention that they were not aware of the gazzettement. The legislature was aware of such eventualities and provided for enlargement of time under Rule 67 of Probate and Administration Rules so that no one is locked out. Rule 60 of the Probate and Administration Rules also provides that any interested party can enter a appearance and file the necessary affidavits. It seems that the legislature was keen to have all who have interests in an estate to be heard. Even if 2nd objector is the applicants’ son and should ideally have demonstrated his interest in the estate even at this stage, the court will allow the application so that the objectors can register their objectors. Application dated 26/1/04 is hereby allowed with costs being in the cause.
Dated at Machakos this 20th day of December 2004
Read and delivered in the presence of
R.V. WENDOH
JUDGE