[2016] KEHC 5260 (KLR)
The court found that the appointment of administrators on both 20th January, 2015 and 28th September, 2015 was irregular, particularly as Peter Ndung’u Kamau was appointed as administrator in both instances, effectively appearing on both sides of the dispute. This was deemed unprocedural and irregular. Furthermore,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 5260 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Reuben Ng’ethe Kamau; Applicant: Ann Waithira Kamau; Applicant: Joyce E Ruguru Kamau; Respondent: Peter Ndung’u Kamau; Respondent: Peter Gitau Kamau
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 2678 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Orders and Determine Proper Administrators
- Outcome
- Both previous orders vacated; process for filing petition halted; parties to set hearing date or pursue mediation.
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Letters of Administration, Confirmation of Grant, Beneficiary Consent, Appointment of Administrator
- 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
Reuben Ng’ethe Kamau
Applicant
Ann Waithira Kamau
Applicant
Joyce E Ruguru Kamau
Applicant
Peter Ndung’u Kamau
Respondent
Peter Gitau Kamau
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Orders and Determine Proper Administrators
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the ex-parte orders made on 28th September, 2015 should be set aside.
- 2 Whether the appointment of administrators was proper given the overlap of parties on both sides.
- 3 Whether the process for filing the petition for grant of letters of administration can proceed in the absence of consents from all beneficiaries.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appointment of administrators on both 20th January, 2015 and 28th September, 2015 was irregular, particularly as Peter Ndung’u Kamau was appointed as administrator in both instances, effectively appearing on both sides of the dispute. This was deemed unprocedural and irregular. Furthermore, the court determined that neither group of parties could proceed with the petition for grant of letters of administration as they would not be able to obtain the necessary consents from all beneficiaries. Consequently, both previous orders were vacated, and the process for filing the petition was halted until further orders. The beneficiaries were directed to set a hearing date...
Court Disposition
Both previous orders vacated; process for filing petition halted; parties to set hearing date or pursue mediation.
Orders
- Orders of 20th January, 2015 and 28th September, 2015 are vacated.
- Process of filing the petition for grant of letters of administration is halted until further orders.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO.2678 of 2013
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THARIKI alias JOSEPH KAMAU (DECEASED)
REUBEN NG’ETHE KAMAU...........................................1ST APPLICANT
ANN WAITHIRA KAMAU..............................................2ND APPLICANT
JOYCE E RUGURU KAMAU.........................................3RD APPLICANT
VERSUS
PETER NDUNG’U KAMAU........................................1ST RESPONDENT
PETER GITAU KAMAU.............................................2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
By an application filed 3rd December, 2015 the Respondent sought under rules 49, 63 of the Probate and Administration Rulesand the enabling provisions of the law the following orders;
1. The ex-parteorders made by this Court on 28th September, 2015 be set aside and the application dated 27th January, 2015 be set down for hearing on merit;
The Applicant relied on the following grounds;
1. The said orders were made ex-partewithout the presence of the Applicants or their Advocate on the 28th September, 2015;
2. The orders are erroneous as on 20th January, 2015 joint administration of the estate herein had been given to the 1st Applicant and the 2nd Respondent herein.
3. After the issuance of the said administration, the Court directed both the Applicants and the Respondents to agree on the mode of distribution and thereafter file summons for confirmation of grant
On 25th April, 2015 Mr. Ngigi informed the Court he served the Respondents as per the affidavit of service filed on 25th April, 2016. They were not in Court.
Mr. Ngigi for the Applicant informed the Court; The application of 14th October, 2015 is that the Court on 20th January, 2015 gave orders that the Applicants herein; Reuben Ng’ethe Kamau, Peter Ndungu Kamau are the administrators of the deceased’s estate and should file Petition for grant of letters of administration.
On 28th September, 2015 the Respondents filed an application under certificate of urgency and sought that Reuben Ng’ethe Kamau should not be an administrator. The Court issued orders appointing the Objectors as administrators and the parties to proceed with obtaining a Petition for letters of administration.
COURT ORDERS
1. This Court has perused the Court record and finds that it is true that this Court appointed the Applicants as administrator on 20th January, 2015 and appointed the Objectors as administrators on 28th September, 2015.
2. Neither of the parties can proceed with filing the petition for grant of letters of administration for the estate of Joseph Kamau Thiriki (deceased) as neither group will obtain consents from all other beneficiaries.
3. Secondly the Court notes that in the application for orders of 20th January, 2015 Peter Ndungu Kamau was appointed administrator. In the application for orders of 28th September, 2015 the very same Peter Ndungu Kamau is one of the Applicants as administrator too. He cannot be on both sides.. This is strange, unprocedural and irregular.
4. Therefore both orders of 20th January, 2015 and 28th September, 2015 are vacated and the process of filing the petition is halted until further orders from the Court.
5. The beneficiaries of the estate to take a hearing date for hearing and determination of who will be administrator of the deceased’s estate or pursue Court annexed mediation process.
READ AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016
MARGARET W. MUIGAI
JUDGE
In the presence of;
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………