[2013] KEHC 2009 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent had not utilized the correct legal avenues to challenge the ruling of 11/10/2012, having neither appealed nor sought review. Instead, the respondent attempted to challenge the ruling through a replying affidavit, which is procedurally improper. The court also noted that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 2009 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Veracia Weria Ireri; Respondent: Njeru Ireri; Respondent: David Ngondi Ireri; Respondent: John Ndwiga; Respondent: DaugLas Mugambi Mbaka; Respondent: Lucy Njoki Njoka
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 208 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Annulment and Revocation of Grant
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Revocation of Grant, Dependant Provision, Estate Distribution
- 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
Veracia Weria Ireri
Petitioner
Njeru Ireri
Respondent
David Ngondi Ireri
Respondent
John Ndwiga
Respondent
DaugLas Mugambi Mbaka
Respondent
Lucy Njoki Njoka
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Annulment and Revocation of Grant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent's challenge to the court's earlier ruling is properly before the court.
- 2 Whether the respondent has followed the correct procedure to contest the distribution of the estate.
- 3 Whether the application for annulment and revocation of grant should be allowed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent had not utilized the correct legal avenues to challenge the ruling of 11/10/2012, having neither appealed nor sought review. Instead, the respondent attempted to challenge the ruling through a replying affidavit, which is procedurally improper. The court also noted that the respondent failed to provide for certain dependants in her proposed mode of distribution and had not raised issues regarding other succession causes in the appropriate files. The court concluded that the respondent's conduct demonstrated a lack of regard for due process and court orders. Consequently, the application dated 22/5/2013 was allowed, with each party to bear their own costs.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The application dated 22/5/2013 is allowed.
- Each party to bear his/her own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 208 OF 2010
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF IRERI KAGANE (DECEASED)
AND
IN THE MATER OF RUNYENJES PM'S SUCC. CAUSE NO. 101 OF 1976
AND
IN THE MATTER OF ANULMENT AND REVOCATION OF GRANT
AND
VERACIA WERIA IRERI........…..........PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
NJERU IRERI......................................................1ST RESPONDENT
DAVID NGONDI IRERI.......................................2ND RESPONDENT
JOHN NDWIGA..................................................3RD RESPONDENT
DAUGLAS MUGAMBI MBAKA.........................4TH RESPONDENT
LUCY NJOKI NJOKA........................................5TH RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The application dated 22/5/2013 refers. The orders sought were made vide the Ruling of 11/10/2012. There is a rectification of the certificate for confirmation that was allowed by the Court on 18/4/2013.
The replying affidavit of the Respondent sworn on 12/9/2013 appears to be challenging the courts Ruling of 11/10/2012. On 11/10/2012 the Respondent was granted leave to appeal against the Ruling which she has not done. She has also not filed an application for Review. It is surprising that the Respondent is represented by Counsel who was even given time by this Court to peruse the file and act. Instead of filing the relevant application the Respondent has elected to make prayers through a replying affidavit. She is reminded that before this Court made provision for the dependants of her deceased son she had not provided for them in her mode of distribution. And if indeed she knew that Josephine Kinanu M'ngiti existed why had she not provided for her in her mode of distribution?
If she has issues with Runyenjes Succession Cause No. 4/2008, its important that those issues be raised in that said file Succession Cause No.4/2008 (Runyenjes) and Embu High Court Succession Cause No. 208/2010 deal with totally different estates.
Mr. Momanyi knows the procedure to follow for a dependant who has not been provided for. It is not through disobeying court orders. From what has been exhibited before this Court its clear in my mind that the Respondent is not keen on letting go of her deceased husband estate and she has no regard for due process.
I therefore allow the application dated 22/5/2013. Each party to bear his/her own costs. Right of appeal explained.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013.
H.I. ONG’UDI
J U D G E
In the presence of:-
Ms. Wairimu for Applicant
Mr. Neseke for Wanyonyi for Petitioner/Respondent
Petitioner
Beneficiaries
Njue CC