REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT CHUKA

HCCA NO. 3 OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MESHACK NYANGI ALIAS NYANGI KABUGA(DECEASED)

JOSEPH  BUNDI NYANGI.......................................................... APPELLANT

VERSUS

FELIX CIRA MISHECK............................................................RESPONDENT

((Being an Appeal from the ruling and orders of Hon. J.M  Njoroge (CM) delivered at Chuka on 13^th February 2019 in Succ. Cause No. 36 of 2018)

J U D G E M E N T

1. JOSEPH BUNDI NYANGI, the Appellant herein had moved the lower  court  in Chuka Chief Magistrate's Court  Succession Cause No.36 of 2018  for revocation of grant issued to FELIX CIRA MISHECK, the Respondent  herein on 6^th July 2018.

2. The grounds upon which the Appellant had moved the lower court for  revocation of the said grant were that the same had been obtained secretly  and fraudulently through false statements made to the trial court.

3. The trial court was called upon to determine the summons for revocation of  grant dated 30^th July 2018 but the said  court found that it lacked jurisdiction to  entertain the application and struck it out with no order as  to costs.

4. The Appellant felt aggrieved and preferred this appeal raising the following  grounds namely:-

i. That trial magistrate erred in law and in fact by holding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the Summons for Revocation of Grant dated 30^th July 2018.

ii. That the learned trial magistrate erred by failing to consider Sections 48, 49 of Law of Succession Act.

iii. That the learned magistrate erred by striking out the Summons for Revocation of Grant dated 30^th July 2018 against the weight of evidence presented.

5. In his written submissions dated 2^nd August, 2019 done through learned  Counsel Ramadhani M. Abubakar, the Appellant contends that Section 23 of  the Magistrate's Court Act No. 26 of 2015 caused an amendment to  Section 48 of Law of Succession Act which amendment in his view gave  magistrates  the power to entertain any application made under the Act.  The  Appellant submits that the trial court should have entertained the application  and considered it on merit.  In his view the trial court erred by failing to  consider the provisions of Sections 48 and 49  of Law of Succession Act  with the amendments thereof.

6. The Appellant avers that the trial magistrate erred when it struck out the  Summons for Revocation of Grant against the weight of evidence presented.   In his view, he tabulated reasons why the Respondent was not fit to be the  administrator of the estate of the late Mershak Nyangi alias Nyangi Kabuga  (deceased).  The Appellant claims that he is a son to the deceased and that  the grant was obtained through fraud as he did not sign consent in Form 38  to give the Respondent leeway to apply for grant of letters of administration.

7. The Appellant alleges the Respondent had filed another Succession Cause  No.335 of 2016 which was withdrawn due to forgeries of some of the  signatures of the beneficiaries and more specifically the signature of Joyce  Wangai Murage as a result of which he was charged in court.  It is on that  basis that the Appellant fell that the Respondent did not qualify to be  appointed an administrator.  The Appellant in this appeal has relied on two  authorities which found that a magistrate's court has jurisdiction to  determine an application brought under Section 76 of Law of Succession  Act.  The decisions are;

a) Turfena Anyango Owour & Another -vs- Mary Akinyi Rengo [2018] eKLR.

b) Joseph Odera Ombayo- vs- Robert Ombayo Wambogo [2019] eKLR.

8. Felix Cira Misheck, the Respondent herein has  opposed this appeal through  written submissions by learned Counsel I.C Mugo Advocate.  The  Respondent contends that Section 23 of the Magistrate's Court's Act  which amended Section 48 of the Law of Succession Act did not  specifically say that magistrate's would have jurisdiction to hear and  determine summons for  revocation of grant.  He insists that while the  provisions Section 48 of the Act expressly stated that magistrates lacked  jurisdiction to determine Summons for Revocation of Grant, Section 23  of the Magistrate's Court Act did expressly provide that jurisdiction.  He  further contends that parliament could not have forgotten to grant  jurisdiction if it intended so.

9. The Respondent points out that Rule 44 of Probate and Administration  Rules  have not been amended or repealed and that in his view informed the  trial court's holding that it had no jurisdiction to deal with Summons for  Revocation of Grant.  He  submits that the amendment  to Section 48 of the  Act did not confer jurisdiction arguing that it only the High Court which can  deal with Section 76 of the Act.

11. The Respondent has further opposed this appeal contending that the  Summons for Revocation of Grant in the lower court had no merit insisting  that the Appellant simply did not want to be a co-administrator with the  Respondent.  He denies that there was any concealment faulting the  Respondent for failing to co-operate with  him.

12. Determination:

 Revocation or anulment of a grant whether confirmed or not is provided  under Section 76 of the Act.  The grounds upon which a grant may be  revoked is listed under that Section.  This include;

a) Defect in the proceeding leading to the grant of letters of administration.

b) Fraud that if the grant was obtained through fraud or concealment of material facts or misleading information.

c) Mistake or inadvertence

d) Where a grant is rendered useless due to accurence of an event.

13. The procedure for revocation of grant is provided for under Rule 44(1) of  Probate and Administration  Rules and this is where the  grey area begins.   Under Rule 44(1) a party seeking revocation or annulment of grant is  required to do it through the High Court if the grant was issued by the Subordinate  Court.  Prior to amendment of Section 48(1) of the Act, the law provided 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....................."(Emphasis added)

14. Parliament through legal Notice No.26 of 2015 amended Section 48 of the  Act which now provide as follows:-

  " Notwithstanding any other written law which limits jurisdiction    but subject to the provision of Section 49, a Magistrate shall have    jurisdiction to entertain any application and to determine any     dispute under this Act and pronounce such degrees and make such    orders thereon as may be expedient in respect of  any estate the    gross value of which does not exceed the pecuniary limit prescribed    under Section 7(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 2015"

  (Emphasis added).

 The amendment in my considered view granted the magistrates court to  entertain any application and determine any dispute under Law of  Succession Act.  That amendment expressly granted jurisdiction to  magistrates to deal with any application including those brought under  Section 76 save for monetary limit under Section 7(1) of the Magistrate's  Court Act.  Under Section 7(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, the  magistrates are granted jurisdiction to entertain proceedings of civil nature  whose value does not exceed;

a) For Chief Magistrates -  20,000,000/-  (Twenty million Shillings)

b) For Senior Principal Magistrates - 15 million (Fifteen million shillings)

c) Principal Magistrates  - 10 million (Ten million shillings)

d) Senior Resident Magistrates- 7 million  (Seven million shillings)

e) Resident Magistrates- 5 million  (Five millings shillings).

  The Chief  Justice may from time to time revise by notice the  pecuniary  limits of any magistrate.

15. The value of the estate in the cause before the trial court in this matter is  given "over 1 million" but none of the parties has raised any issue regarding  the monetary jurisdiction of the lower court to determine that  cause.

16. The effect of the aforestated amendment to Section 48 of the Law of  Succession Act was to give power to the lower court to entertain and  determine all applications under that Act.  The amendment in my view must  have been informed by the necessity to give jurisdiction to magistrates to  deal with disputes under the Act so long as value of the subject matter are  within monetary limits of those courts as provided under the cited  Magistrates'  Courts Act.  The basis of the amendment in my view must have  been  informed by such factors as expediency and costs of litigation.   Given  the express effect of the amendment to Section 48 of the Act, I find and hold  that Magistrate's Courts have jurisdiction to entertain and determine all  application including Summons for Revocation of Grant under Section 76 of  the Act.  The Rules Committee should have by now amended Rule 44 of the  Probate and Administration Rules to be in tandem with the clear provisions  of Section 48.  Failure to amend the said provisions, cannot be interpreted to  mean that  jurisdiction granted by a statute is taken away by subsidiary  legislation.  Subsidiary legislation cannot override clear provisions if a  parent statute.  This  court is persuaded by the holding of the following   decisions;

i. Turfena Anyango Owuor -vs- Mary Akinyi Dengo [2018] eKLR

ii. Joseph Odera Ombayo -vs- Robert Ombayo Wambogo [2019] eKLR

17. The Appellant has asked this court to determine the Summons for  Revocation  of  Grant dated 30^th July 2018 but looking at the ruling from  the Chief Magistrate, the court did not determine that matter on merit and it  would be improper for this court to usurp the jurisdiction and determine the  matter.  The  proper thing to do owing to my finding is to give the  same  court a chance to determine the Summons for Revocation of Grant dated  30^th July 2018 on the merits.

 In the foregoing, this appeal is allowed in part.  The finding by the trial court  to strike out the Summons for Revocation of Grant dated 30^th July 2018 for  want of jurisdiction is set aside.  That court shall now proceed and determine  that application on merit.  I will not make any order as to costs in this appeal  as this is a family matter.

 Dated, signed and delivered at Chuka this 13^th day of November 2019.

R. K. LIMO

JUDGE

13/11/2019

Judgment dated, signed and delivered in the open court in presence of  Githaiga for Appellant and in presence of Respondent.

R.K. LIMO

JUDGE

13/11/2019