Succession Cause 385 of 1999

Help

Advanced Search mode is suitable for finding a particular case when you have details that describe the case at hand e.g. (names of parties, case number, case year etc).
To find a case according to its meta data (names of parties, case number, and date of delivery, case year etc) one need not fill in all the fields. You may use any one or more search criteria; search using whatever information you have..

Download: PDF DOC DOCX PDF With Metadata Docx With Metadata XML Show Metadata

In Re Estate of Njoroge Gachoho (Deceased) [2010] eKLR

Case Metadata
Case Number:	Succession Cause 385 of 1999
Parties:	In Re Estate of Njoroge Gachoho (Deceased)
Date Delivered:	17 Mar 2010
Case Class:	Civil
Court:	High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Case Action:	Ruling
Judge(s):	George Matatia Abaleka Dulu
Citation:	In Re Estate of Njoroge Gachoho (Deceased) [2010] eKLR
Advocates:	Nganga Ngigi & Company Advocates for the applicants.
Parties Profile:	Individual v Individual
County:	Nairobi
Advocates:	Nganga Ngigi & Company Advocates for the applicants.
Case Summary:	Family Law-probate and administration-grant-summons for revocation of grant-application to set aside orders of revocation of grant-grounds that the applicants were the registered owners of the suit property-applicants claiming to have been interested parties in the probate cause and not being served with the application for revocation-where the land in dispute had been received by transmission not by succession-effect of-whether there applicant established a justifiable reason to warrant the order sought-Probate and Administration Rules, rule 44(3), (4) and (5); rule 73
History Advocates:	One party or some parties represented
Case Outcome:	Application dismissed.
Disclaimer:	The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)

Succession Cause 385 of 1999

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF NJOROGE GACHOHO (DECEASED)

R U L I N G

Before me is a Summons dated 17^th September, 2009 filed by m/s Nganga Ngigi & Company advocates for the applicants named as JOHN MWAURA NJOROGE and GEORGE CHEGE NJOROGE. The application was said to be for setting aside orders of revocation. It was filed under Rule 44 (3), (4) and (5) and Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules. The orders sought are as follows-

(a) That the exparte orders made on 21^st October, 20-04 revoking the grant issued to WAMUKORE NJOROGE be set aside.

(b) That costs be provided for.

The grounds of the application are firstly that the applicants were registered as proprietors by way of transmission of land parcel Number KIGANJO/KIGANJO/205; secondly, that the applicants as interested parties were never served with the application for revocation of grant; and thirdly that the applicants were condemned unheard against the principles of natural justice.

Also filed with the application was an affidavit sworn on 17^th September, 2009 by one of the applicants JOHN MWAURA NJOROGE. It was deposed in the said affidavit, inter alia, that though the applicants were not parties in the application for revocation of grant, the exparte orders made on 21^st October, 2004 condemned them unheard.

I have considered the application and documents filed. Having done so, I cannot grant the prayers sought.

The first reason why I will not grant the prayers sought is that I don’t see how the applicants can claim to have been condemned unheard. If indeed the land was registered in their name through transmission, not succession, then in my view they do not stand to lose anything by the said revocation. The second reason why the application will fail is that the applicants cannot force the former administrator to be an administrator WAMUKORE NJOROGE wanted to challenge the ruling of the court, she should have done so in person. She has not done so. The effect of granting the orders sought would be to appoint an administrator who has not applied to be an administrator, after the grant was revoked. That cannot be done by this court. There is no justifiable reason to do so. It will amount to forcing her to be an administrator without her knowledge and without the consent of interested parties beneficiaries. I will therefore not allow this application.

For the above reasons, the application is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.

Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 17^th day of March, 2010.

George Dulu

Judge.

Download PDF DOC DOCX PDF With Metadata Docx With Metadata XML

Please enter advanced search options

Case Content:		Subject:
Case Number:		Parties:
Judge:		Court:
	Delivery Date Range:
From:		To:

Except for some material which is expressly stated to be under a specified Creative Commons license, the contents of this website are in the public domain and free from any copyright restrictions

Case Search

Succession Cause 385 of 1999

Case Metadata

Please enter advanced search options