[2015] KEHC 1782 (KLR)
The court found that the Maseno Magistrate's Court lacked monetary jurisdiction to entertain the succession cause, as the value of the estate (specifically, land parcel KISUMU/KOLUNJE/868 measuring 6.6 hectares) far exceeded the statutory limit of Kshs. 100,000 set by Section 49(1) of the Law of Succession Act....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 1782 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Risper A. Omollo; Applicant: Jane A. India; Applicant: Raphael A. Osuro; Respondent: Patrick Nyarianya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 408 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Applications to Annul Grant and Related Reliefs
- Outcome
- Grant annulled for want of jurisdiction; consequential orders cancelled; file transferred to High Court; status quo maintained; liberty to file claims; each party to bear own costs.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Magistrates Courts, Annulment of Grant, Succession Procedure, Estate Administration
- 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
Risper A. Omollo
Applicant
Jane A. India
Applicant
Raphael A. Osuro
Applicant
Patrick Nyarianya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Applications to Annul Grant and Related Reliefs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Maseno Magistrate's Court had jurisdiction to issue and confirm the grant of letters of administration for the estate of Andricus Obongo Nyarianya.
- 2 Whether the grant issued and confirmed at Maseno Magistrate's Court should be annulled due to lack of jurisdiction.
- 3 Whether consequential orders, including transfer of land to the respondent, should be cancelled.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Maseno Magistrate's Court lacked monetary jurisdiction to entertain the succession cause, as the value of the estate (specifically, land parcel KISUMU/KOLUNJE/868 measuring 6.6 hectares) far exceeded the statutory limit of Kshs. 100,000 set by Section 49(1) of the Law of Succession Act. Consequently, all proceedings, grants, and consequential orders issued by the Maseno Magistrate's Court were null and void ab initio. The High Court, being the court of proper jurisdiction, ordered the annulment of the grant and all subsequent actions, including the transfer of the suit land to the respondent. The succession file was transferred to the High Court for proper hearing...
Court Disposition
Grant annulled for want of jurisdiction; consequential orders cancelled; file transferred to High Court; status quo maintained; liberty to file claims; each party to bear own costs.
Orders
- The grant issued on 13.6.14 and confirmed on 11.2.13 at Maseno Magistrate's Court is annulled forthwith.
- All consequential orders, including the transfer of the suit parcel of land to the respondent on 19.2.13, are cancelled and the land registrar is ordered to amend the register so the land reverts to the deceased.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KISUMU
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO.408 OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ANDERICUS OBONGO NYARIANYA -DECEASED
AND
RISPER A. OMOLLO
JANE A. INDIA........................APPLICANTS/INTERESTED PARTIES
RAPHAEL A. OSURO
VERSUS
PATRICK NYARIANYA............................PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. There are 3 sets of applications filed by the parties herein. The first one is the amended chamber summons dated 2. 7.2013 in which RISPER ALICE AMOLO OMOLLOamong other prayers is asking that the respondentPATRICK NYARIANYA be restrained from dealing with land parcel number KISUMU/KOLUNJE/868. The said applicant is equally praying that the grant of letters of administration issued on 13/9/12 and confirmed on 11. 1.13 vide Maseno Succession Cause No.12/12 be annulled and set or set aside.
2. The other applicant JANE ACHIENG INDIAmade a similar application jointly with RAPHAEL AKELO OSURO dated 14. 10. 15. The substance of their application is that they are beneficiaries of the estate by virtue of being beneficiaries having purchased the suit parcel of land.
3. Further that the whole issue was litigated upon by court vide the land dispute tribunal and its finding adopted in land case No.7/12 at Kisumu Chief Magistrate's Court. The respondent's appeal to the Appeal Board according to the applicants was not successful.
4. While the application was pending the respondent on 19/5/15 filed an application dated even date seeking to injunct the applicants herein from dealing with the suit property. According to him the applicants were trespassers and inter-meddlers to the estate.
5. When this matters came up for hearing the court reserved its direction so as to peruse the said application. From the gleaning of the facts herein it is clear that the genesis of the problem between the parties dates back to the days of the dispute at the Land Tribunal, a fact well known by the applicant. Fundamentally though is whether the respondent's letters of administration which he filed at Maseno Magistrate's Court and later confirmed were valid for purposes of the Succession Act.
6. The magistrate's Court as per the Succession Act can only determine estates which its monetary value does not exceed Kshs.100,000/=. Section 49(1) of the said Act states as follows:
“Notwithstanding any other written law which limits jurisdiction, but subject to the provisions of section 49, a resident magistrate shall have jurisdiction to entertain any application other than an application under Section 76 and to determine any dispute under this Act and pronounce such decrees and make such orders therein as may be expedient in respect of any estate the gross value of which does not exceed one hundred thousand shillings:
Provided that for the purpose of this section in any place where both the High Court and a resident magistrate's court are available, the High Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to make all grounds of representation and determine all disputes under the Act.”
7. The size of the land parcel KISUMU/KOLUNJE/868 measures 6. 6 hectares. The court takes judicial notice that the value is way above Kshs.100,00/= envisaged by the Act. Consequently even without determining whether the applicants are entitled to the estate of the deceased it is clear that the magistrate's court at Maseno did not have the monetary jurisdiction and by extension territorial jurisdiction to entertain the succession cause. The High Court at Kisumu is within the geographical as well as administrative jurisdiction of the said Maseno Court.
8. In the premises, I am left with no other option but to make the following orders:
1. The grant issued on 13. 6.14 and confirmed on 11. 2.13 at Maseno Magistrate's Court is hereby annulled forthwith.
2. All the consequential orders arising therefrom including the transfer of the suit parcel of land to the respondent PATRICK NYARIANYA on 19. 2.13 is hereby cancelled and the land registrar is hereby ordered to amend the register accordingly so as to have the suit land revert to the late ANDERICUS OBONGO NYARIANYA.
3. The succession file No.12/12 at Maseno Principal Magistrate's Court is hereby transferred to Kisumu High Court for hearing and final determination.
4. Upon prayer (3) above being implemented a fresh grant shall issue to PATRICK NYARIANYA ODUNGA, the respondent herein.
5. Let there be a status quo on the ground, namely that each party to continue utilizing the suit parcel of land as at the date of the delivery of this ruling.
6. The applicants upon prayer (3) above being complied shall be at liberty to file their respective claims.
7. Each party shall meet their respective costs.
Dated, signed and delivered this 29th October, 2015
H. K. CHEMITEI
J U D G E