[2013] KEHC 2845 (KLR)
The court found that the Limited Grant of Letters of Administration ad litem held by the applicant was expressly limited to the purpose of filing or prosecuting a suit and did not authorize the applicant to seek injunctive orders or to act outside the scope of the grant. Furthermore, the application for a mandatory...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 2845 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rebecca Munee Mutiso; Respondent: Phoebe Muthoki Mutiso
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 1057 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application for Mandatory Injunction
- Outcome
- Application struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent.
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Limited Grant of Letters of Administration, Injunctive Relief, Locus Standi, Succession Proceedings
- 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
Rebecca Munee Mutiso
Applicant
Phoebe Muthoki Mutiso
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application for Mandatory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a Limited Grant of Letters of Administration ad litem empowers the applicant to seek injunctive orders in succession proceedings.
- 2 Whether the application for a mandatory injunction is competent in the absence of a substantive suit.
- 3 Whether the applicant has locus standi to seek the orders given the nature of the grant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Limited Grant of Letters of Administration ad litem held by the applicant was expressly limited to the purpose of filing or prosecuting a suit and did not authorize the applicant to seek injunctive orders or to act outside the scope of the grant. Furthermore, the application for a mandatory injunction was not anchored in any substantive suit as required by the Civil Procedure Act, which defines a suit as all civil proceedings commenced in a prescribed manner. As such, the application was deemed incompetent, and the applicant lacked the necessary locus standi to seek the orders. The court therefore struck out the application with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
Application struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent.
Orders
- The application dated 10/5/2012 is struck out as incompetent.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 1057 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MUTISO KIMUYU ITUMO (DECEASED)
REBECCA MUNEE MUTISO ...................................... APPLICANT
VERSUS
PHOEBE MUTHOKI MUTISO ………………………… RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The summons dated 10/5/2012 is brought under sections 4, 82 and 83 of the Law of Succession Act, Cap 160 of the Laws of Kenya and sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21.
The application seeks orders that:-
The Respondent by herself, her servants, agents, employees be and is hereby compelled by way of a mandatory injunction to avail the shareholding certificate numbers, membership numbers, title deeds, receipts and any other documents relating to all the property owned by the deceased pursuant to his demise and subsequent developments as a result of the estate of deceased pending the hearing and determination of this cause.
That Officer Commanding Police Division (OCPD) Machakos to ensure compliance with the court orders.
That the costs of this application be provided for.”
The background facts are set out in the affidavit in support sworn by the Applicant, Rebecca Munee Mutiso on 10/3/2012. The Applicant has described herself as the first wife of the deceased and the holder of a Limited Grant of Letters of Administration ad litem. The Applicant’s complaint is that the Respondent has held the documents in question in a manner that is adverse to the interests of other beneficiaries.
In opposition to the application, the Respondent swore a replying affidavit on 3/7/2012. The Respondent has described herself as the second wife to the deceased. The Respondent’s contention is that the Applicant obtained the Limited Grant of Letters of Administration ad litem without the consent of the other beneficiaries. The Respondent denied that the documents requested by the Applicant are in her possession. The Respondent further stated that the Limited Grant of Letters of Administration ad litem cannot be used to distribute the estate of the deceased.
The Respondent also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 22/4/2013 on the following grounds:-
THAT the proceedings herein are spurious, incompetent and an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court and should be dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
THAT the summons herein is hopelessly misconceived, frivolous and totally devoid of merit.
THAT the reliefs sought herein touch on property estate of a deceased person and hence are a preserve ofOrder 37 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
THAT the Applicant herein should have applied for a Grant Letters of Administration and Colligenda Bona to collect and preserve the assets of the deceased before the making of full Grant and not Limited Grant Letters of Administration Ad litem for the purpose of filing civil suit.
THAT the Respondent herein being a wife to the deceasedMutiso Kimuyu Itumoand or her children did not consent to the said Letters of Administration, Ad litem and hence the Applicant has no locus standibefore this Honourable Court to obtain the orders sought. The proceedings herein are nullity and a non-starter for the reasons above adduced.
Both the application and the Preliminary Objection were canvassed simultaneously.
The bone of contention herein is whether the Limited Grant of ad litem empowered the Applicant to file the application at hand.
The said grant which is exhibited herein (annexture “RMM 1”) is limited only for the purpose of filing/prosecuting suit. The grant was therefore issued for a special purpose. The Applicant cannot therefore purport to go outside the powers given by the said grant.
The Applicant’s application seeks injunctive orders. The application cannot be described as a suit. Under section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, a ‘suit’ means all civil proceedings commenced in any manner prescribed. The application herein is not anchored in any suit.
With the foregoing, I agree with the Respondent’s counsel that the application is incompetent. Consequently, I strike out the same with costs to the Respondent.
………………………………………
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 4thday of July 2013.
……………………………………
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE